 
sbdjaro
I Dunno
Premium
join:2004-01-29
Grand Junction, CO | _ It’s the first day of school today… I’m going to sit in the courtyard and use the wireless network between classes. Is this bad?
lol | |
|  | hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY | Re: _ Only if you dislike handcuffs. | |
| 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
3 edits | Uh, yeah From the article: "Accessing someone's computer system without their permission, under Indiana law, is trespassing."
NOTHING about internet access!
ALOT of Public Libraries are offering *FREE* Wi-Fi to anyone within range. No laws are being broken!
ANY shop, Library, whatever that is offering Wi-Fi to it's customers/public had better have *THEIR* systems locked down like Fort Knox! The free access is to the internet, not systems connected to the network. If you(me/them)break into another system connected to the free access that is being offered, THAT is against the law.
Here, in the S.F. Bay Area, there is alot of Wi-Fi being offered for free(some you have to purchase from the shop, then it's free). I use it from several places from time to time. NOT ILLEGAL!!!
My laptop is locked down so bad, I'm surprised I can even get out...  *I* am safe while using these FREE offerings.
People need to get educated, MANY Public Libraries *ARE* offering free access to ANYONE within range.
Here's some reading that is interesting... »www.wififreespot.com/ and most of Downtown Long Beach... »www.longbeachportals.com/wireles···t_us.htm .
I'm pretty sure, if you look, there is FREE offerings near you too. NOT jacking someone's un secured AP, an actual FREE offering. Accessing someone's AP/wireless network, without permission, *IS* illegal! Breaking into their system(s) *IS* illegal!
Free=Good, Wi-Fi=Good...FREE Wi-Fi=AWESOME!
--
Nuke 'em all, let God sort 'em out. | |
| 
drjim
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
Torrance, CA
clubs:
| It Depends.... On what state you live in. In California, it's a felony to access and/or use someone's network *without their permission*. Would you get nailed? Hard to say, but the law *is* on the books. Yes, I know this has been discussed before, and I'm not looking for a fight, but it's a real law out here, and could be enforced if you got caught and the network owner wanted to press charges.
--
One man's Magic is another man's Engineering. | |
| 
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs: | best. quote. "They even put a so-called wireless hot spot on the Internet."
EVER! | |
| 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| WTF?!?!?!? OK, if IF this is true, I have to say WTF on SO many levels.
First, this police officer has no right to even question this guy. The PO has no probable cause this guy is violating any laws. He’s just sitting on the park bench, typing away on his laptop. No crime in that. Being a LEO I would have politely told this officer to mind his own business.
Second, the local police have no authority to enforce Federal law. The only way a local, or state officer (let alone a glorified campus security guard) could arrest a person for a violation of a Federal law would be as authorized by a Federal law enforcement official, and/or an active warrant. I’ve been in this line of work for 6 years now, and with the exception of constitutional case law as it relates to people’s protected rights I know dittly SQUAT about federal law. Just because he clams some Secret Service agent told him so, doesn’t give the power to arrest on sight for it.
Finally, I would review the acceptable use policy with the library. If the Library has an acceptable use policy, ask for a written copy of it. If the policy doesn’t state you must be in the library to use the signal, I would sit on the park bench for sport, and wait for this moron to come back. Let him arrest you ( don’t resist, resisting even a false arrest is resisting arrest), get a good lawyer, and show this bum what Federal court REALLY looks like.
Something tells me this story is either made up or embellished a bit…. | |
| | | Imogen8
join:2001-11-04
UK
| Re: A few bad apples... what about signal disruption?
would it be legal to fire up bit of equipment that interfered with the wireless signal and made the network useless? what if someone does it unknowingly? would they be committing an offense?
I mean they have not accessed anything illegal  | |
| | | subman87
Another day in the Brentwood
join:2000-11-24
Harrison, NY | non - sense article I've used my laptop outside public building's (town hall & library) that were WI-FI equipped, and was never approached by an officer of the law. Sorry but this article is a BS. | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: A few bad apples... said by Imogen8  :
what about signal disruption?
would it be legal to fire up bit of equipment that interfered with the wireless signal and made the network useless?
Maybe. Wi-Fi devices operate as unlicensed transmitters under FCC Part 15. As such, they must accept interference from other legal devices, including other Part 15 devices [this is different from being a licensed device, such as a cellphone or radio station, which can make unlicensed operators stop operation if they interfere].
So, yes, it is possible to operate a piece of equipment that interferes with the network, so long as the interfering equipment is operating within FCC Part 15 limits. You wouldn't be breaking any federal law. And federal law should pre-empt any state law in this area. | |
| | 
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
2 edits | Nightfall;
If you are accessing systems which you believe to be private and not available for putlic access, you are demonstrating a serious conflict between what you do and what you believe. If you believe it is wrong, you should not do it.
However, as far as I am aware (and I used to do intercept work for a living). You do not need Title authorization to intercept an unencrypted 802.11b data streams. You do need wiretap orders to intercept cellular, mobile phone, and voice pager. Unless something has changed, you do not need authorization to intercept digital pager. It is not illegal to monitor public service communications fire, police, and rescue. As far as I am aware, and unless something has changed drastically, the only new protected communications since 1993 is the link between a cordless phone and it's base unit. Indeed that was not protected until the Supreme Court ruled on a drug smuggeling case out of San Angelo, Texas, where *someone* intercepted Arabic language communications between the handheld and the base and taped it.... circa 1993.
Bottom line, you probably are not illegal if you are intercepting 802.1x but you may be illegal at the moment you associate with an access point. Anyone running a wireless sniffer should carefully research any assertions I made here because I have had little interest in the changes in the laws since 1993. A lot can change in eleven years.
All that said, I run wireless sniffers from time to time. I have monitored networks where I was confident the owners of those networks would not approve of me having access to the network content. I have used the information gleaned to improve the security of anyone who would listen. I do not approach the vulenrable networks personally because to date I have not bothered with anything but networks which clearly should have been secured and which were not secured. I have spoken with state reps and asked them to talk with the cities and counties involved to make them aware they are not secured. So far this process has worked and not gotten me into trouble. I tend to be very cautious because this is one kind of play where they will definately shoot the messanger if the public is made aware of their stupidity. County and city officials really hate being made to look stupid.
Personally I would like to see an application developed for the wardriver which would log into a completely unsecured AP which remained at it's defaults and set a WEP key, change the admin password, and log off all automagically. Then I would like to see about 500 war drivers running around the US with that piece of software running from their cars. Sounds harsh? Yeah, but it would damn sure get the people's attention and that needed to happen a long time ago.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | | 
Sodium
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Rice Lake, WI
|  Re: A few bad apples...
 ).
The idea you propose is interesting. It reminds me of a worm written by a whitehat hacker to patch I believe the NIMDA or CODE RED worm that attacked SQL servers. Anyway the worm did patch the code on the vulnerable machines it found, but it was a worm nonetheless and its method of propagation no different than the blackhat version. The effect? Thousands of logjammed servers getting DOS flooded by the whitehat version trying to propagate itself.
Aside from the fact of being very illegal, the fact remains that if the people weren't intelligent enough to set a WEP key right off the bat, then how would they know what is going on once their computers that are connected wirelessly suddenly stop connecting to the internet? They will spend a few hours on the phone with tech support until they reset the router back to its default settings of open wireless, and then you will be back to where you started from.
I believe the best solution would be to get rid of WEP immediately (WEP is totally open to bruteforce attacks on its encryption, no matter what the keylength) and either patch WAP (WAP is open to the MICHAEL vulnerability which will shut down the AP if flooded with packets) or come up with a new standard. In the meantime, manufacturers should be required to provide firmware upgrades to WEP-only routers that both require WEP encryption and require the change of password every so often to prevent brute-forcing the keys. Unfortunately, like most critical vulnerabilities, the damage has already been done and it would be very difficult to upgrade even half of the routers out there with built-in WEP because the firmware upgrade would have to be done voluntarily by the end-user. And now we are back to where we started, are we not?  | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Nightfall :
For starters, I have a high gain magnetic mount antenna that I use to get access to open access points. So yes, I wardrive. However, is it illegal? Probably.
You are also violating FCC law. If your antenna is NOT type accepted for that piece of equipment, then you are breaking the law.
Also, if the antenna has a high gain and goes over the 1W ERP (with an omni-directional antenna) or 4W (with a yagi antenna), you are above Part 15 rules and therefore in violation.
»www.pacwireless.com/faq/fcc_eirp.shtml | |
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: A few bad apples... said by moonpuppy :
You are also violating FCC law. If your antenna is NOT type accepted for that piece of equipment, then you are breaking the law.
Also, if the antenna has a high gain and goes over the 1W ERP (with an omni-directional antenna) or 4W (with a yagi antenna), you are above Part 15 rules and therefore in violation.
»www.pacwireless.com/faq/fcc_eirp.shtml
Both being things that Michael Powell is extremely concerned about, I'm sure. He's still trying to drive competitive circuit-switched CLECs out of business.
Question: Has anyone, anywhere in the US, ever been prosecuted for signal strength or antenna violations of the Wi-Fi rules? (And note I said "prosecuted", as in being formally charged with a crime in a docketed court case. A "clean up your act" letter doesn't count, whether it's from the FCC or your mother.)
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | | hedyd4u
Premium
join:2003-12-16
Schenectady, NY
| No you do not have permission to just walk in and make your self at home. Just because some liberal lawyers thinks so, you can get yourself shot doing so. Dead men don't talk so when the police come they will hear you broke in to satisfy you liberals who think you can use property that is not yours. You can justify your criminal behavior any way you want but a crime is still a crime.
Why are the morals and ethics so low in America today? | |
| | | | | | 
thoughtfulguy
@covad.net | I really love how for a select group of Americans any and every issue boils down to "liberals" dragging down American "morals." Hey, buddy: everything is NOT a nail! | |
| | 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by Nightfall :
I know some wardrivers who try to do damage for instance. There is one person I know who checks for the default router password and changes it for instance.
I hope you take that big goalie stick and whack his shins for him. Every goalie I ever got close to didn't seem to have a problem with that. | |
| 
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | On my property If a signal comes onto my property, I can use it as I wish.
| |
| |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
1 edit | Re: On my property said by tomkb :
If a signal comes onto my property, I can use it as I wish.
Ok... so if your cow wanders onto my property, I can use it as I wish? 'cause I'm up for a couple hundred pounds of free beef...
This argument is patently false. If your cordless telephones base unit wanders it's signal onto my property I can make 1-900 calls to the "talk dirty to me" girls on your nickel and you got no problem with that?
If your baby monitor leaks across to my yard and I hear you and wifey doing the wild thing, I can tape it and sell it on the Internet and you got no problem with that?
Uh.. huh.. you put a lot of thought into this comment.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | | | | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: On my property said by tomkb :
What do you base your non-sense on? If I can prove I am correct, will you make a public appology?
Sure.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | | | | 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| Re: On my property most people dont even realize easedropping on an cordless analog phone conversation is legal. Hence un-wepped wifi, is there a difference ?
--
Go back to HS, just start a political discussion. It will be just like you were a kid! | |
| | | | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
4 edits | Re: On my property said by DaveNJ :
most people dont even realize easedropping on an cordless analog phone conversation is legal. Hence un-wepped wifi, is there a difference ?
Repeating myself....
Cordless telephone is PROTECTED under Title III wiretap law. You need a wiretap authorization to monitor that link. I know this because I was personally (though peripherally) involved in a case which led to a change in the wiretap laws... It was not the below documented case, I hasten to add.
From this link:
»www.techlawjournal.com/home/news···/08c.asp
This Quote:
9th Circuit Decides Wiretap Act Case
8/14. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Price v. Turner, a civil suit alleging violation of the Wiretap Act in connection with the monitoring of cordless wireless phone conversations. However, since the events giving rise to this case occurred ten years ago, this appeal was decided according to state of federal law prior to the 1994 amendments to the Wiretap Act. Frank Turner used a radio scanner to listen to and record conversations of his neighbors who used cordless telephones. These phones used analog radio signals at fixed frequencies, and hence, were easy to monitor. He heard discussions of criminal activities. Turner also informed the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department, which told him to continue, and provided him assistance. All of the intercepted phone communications at issue in this case took place prior to the 1994 amendments to the Wiretap Act. One person whose conversations he monitored was Leora Price. Price filed a civil complaint against Frank Turner and El Dorado County alleging, among other things, violation of the Wiretap Act, invasion of privacy, and a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all of Price's federal claims. Price appealed. The Appeals Court wrote that "At the time of its original enactment in 1968, the Wiretap Act did not expressly refer to the monitoring of radio transmissions. When Congress enlarged the Act's coverage in 1986, Congress explicitly excepted protection for the 'radio portion of a cordless telephone communication.' ... It was not until 1994 that Congress amended the Act to prohibit the interception of cordless telephone communications." The Appeals Court affirmed.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | | 
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| If your baby monitor leaks across to my yard and I hear you and wifey doing the wild thing, I can tape it and sell it on the Internet and you got no problem with that?
I believe that one has been decided by the courts already. And guess what? That's perfectly legal. Same way it's perfectly legal to stand on the street and video tape someone's wife doing the nast thru her bedroom windows using a a high poewer telephoto lense. If it can be seen from any spot outside of the private property, it ain't private. end of story. | |
| | | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
1 edit | Re: On my property From this link:
»www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrim···01_2.htm
This quote:
In 1986, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), which, among others things, extended the prohibitions contained in Title III of the Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the "Wiretap Act"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, to electronic communications that are intercepted contemporaneously with their transmission—that is electronic communications that are in transit between machines and which contain no aural (human voice) component. Thus, communications involving computers, faxes, and pagers (other than "tone-only" pagers) all enjoy the broad protections provided by Title III unless one or more of the statutory exceptions to Title III applies. In the computer context, both the government and third parties are prohibited from installing "sniffer" computer software, such as the FBI’s Carnivore program, to record keystroke and computer traffic of a specific target unless one of the exceptions is present.
If you or the other persons making the ludicris claim that you are authorized access to any signal crossing your property need further help locating competent resources might I suggest google?
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | | | | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| Re: On my property Actually there are states which make RADAR detectors illegal.
Actually, that is not true. There ARE states that make it illegal to install a radar detector in a motor vehicle. Radar detectors by themselves are not illegal to own or use, just using them in motor vehicle is illegal. | |
| | | | |
thoughtfulguy
@covad.net
| Re: On my property And moreover, the only places it's currently illegal to drive with a radar detector are D.C. and Virginia*. And we all know what a shining reputation those jurisdictions has when it comes to constitutional law. The whole region was covered before Maryland's anti-detector law was struck down judicially. Here's to hoping the same thing happens in VA.
*Other exceptions exists for commerical vehicles or super-heavy vehicles. | |
| | | | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: On my property said by thoughtfulguy:
And moreover, the only places it's currently illegal to drive with a radar detector are D.C. and Virginia*. And we all know what a shining reputation those jurisdictions has when it comes to constitutional law. The whole region was covered before Maryland's anti-detector law was struck down judicially. Here's to hoping the same thing happens in VA.
*Other exceptions exists for commerical vehicles or super-heavy vehicles.
and your point is what? All I said was that there are places where radar detectors are illegal.... thanks for agreeing.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | | | | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: On my property Actually it is possible to passively intercept WiFi. Kismet is a good example of that. A Kismet user is undetectable by conventional means on a WiFi network. He simply listens and does not transmit any probes.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | | | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: On my property Agreed. But I don't think that's what most people here were thinking about.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
1 edit | Re: On my property said by calvoiper :
Agreed. But I don't think that's what most people here were thinking about.
Calvoiper
Aye, not meaning to argue with you. Just pointing out there is completely passive (Kismet) and then there is "not so passive" (NetStumbler)... Even if you are completely passive, you are accessing data and can get yourself into a jam.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| No, you cannot. If the signal is encrypted, it's against the law to decrypt it.
Your rights to the signal are possibly in a grey area if it's not encrypted but I wouldn't challenge that color in court if the signal involves a accessing a computing device. If you try, you'll likely lose because there are plenty of other laws that say it's illegal to gain unauthorized access to a computer system. Even if the computer system is wide open and unprotected, you still cannot use it unless you are authorized to use it.
Regarding the guy sitting on a park bench, he was probably smart not to challenge "Johnny". He's a campus security guard for a reason. He sounds likes his authority. However, if one wanted to push it, I would think it would be damn hard to prove whether or not he accessed the library network. Since it's an open access point, there are probably no logs and no proof that he violated any law -- even if there is such a law. | |
| |
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Let's start with the distinction between a MEDIUM and a MESSAGE. In the case of radio, the public airwaves can be used to send and receive private messages. The information content of radio waves can be owned, and copyrighted, but not the waves themselves. By the same token, the user of a radio frequency does not own the frequency. They are authorized by a public authority only to use it for a particular purpose in a certain place for a set period (usually the duration of the license). They no more own the channel than a publisher owns the light reflected by a page in a book that they published. To come at this from another angle, a license is needed to broadcast a TV
program. But no license is needed to produce the program.
The public nature of radio airwaves was first recognized in US law by the Radio Act of 1912, and has been upheld in all succeeding laws, even the ECPA. The ECPA criminalizes the "intentional interception" of certain radio communications. It defines "interception" as
"acquiring the contents" of the transmission. Note that an
alternative definition was proposed by AT&T early in the drafting of the ECPA: they proposed to define "interception" as "acquiring the
TRANSMISSION of the contents" (emphasis added). That would have made it a crime merely to hear the hiss of a DES-encrypted audio transmission, or look at the garbled snow of a scrambled TV image. It would have become illegal to sweep the environment to determine what kinds of RF radiation your body is absorbing. Even having the energy
enter your body would pose a legal problem. (The qualifying adjective "intentional" was added much later in the drafting.) Fortunately, Congress rejected this definition as unreasonable and excessive. The
distinction between medium and message was preserved: the ECPA is supposed to protect information, not radio waves.
The Communications Act of 1934 allows you to receive any radio signal that comes to you. But when you aren't "authorized" to receive it, you cannot tell others what you heard or exploit the content for
"gain" (courts usually interpret "gain" as "financial gain"). This policy was a compromise between the well-understood public nature of the physical medium, and the idea that for an act to be criminal, it must BE an act: that is to say, one must act on the information in
some way. Therefore, exploiting or divulging what you overheard was criminalized, not mere passive reception. This was, admittedly, a legal "figleaf" owing to the practical impossibility of preventing people from picking up signals intruding into their homes - and a
recognition that it was in fact not their fault that signals were intruding into their homes.
Speaking on a cellular phone is like using a megaphone. Anyone in range can hear you, and the range is farther than the eye can see. In such a situation, who should be responsible for protecting the "privacy" of the communication -- the transmitter, or everyone else
who happens to be in range? Until passage of the ECPA, it was an established policy, decades old, that the person (or corporation) operating the transmitter bears the initial responsibility for protecting the transmissions. The person who transmits benefits from the use of a public resource (radio frequencies), and is in the best
position to protect signal content. If they take no precautions, there's not much anyone else can do to compensate for their carelessness.
Where the ECPA differs from all past US laws is in making it the responsibility of everyone in range of a wide-area radio signal to avoid receiving it. That is why the law is the object of so much derision even now, so long after its passage. Its most serious defect is that it absolves cellular companies of all responsibility for
protecting the privacy of their customers' phonecalls. Courts, citing the ECPA, have already dismissed several civil suits by customers who argued that broadcasting their phonecalls "in the clear" constitutes a "disclosure" to third parties which violates the Communications Act of
1934.
So rather than protecting the privacy of cellular, as it superficially appears to do, the ECPA actually eliminated the meager protection afforded by earlier laws: the Emperor's New Figleaf. | |
| | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: On my property You forgot to mention the special exception:
If you are a Democrat Congressman, and get a taped copy of a cell phone conference call with Newt Gingrich, you can hand the tape over to the news media and the courts will protect you.
(Of course, if you are a Republican, and disclose Democratic Senate plans to disrupt the judicial approval process for political gain, the courts will not protect you.)
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
2 edits | Re: On my property | |
| | |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Rather than quote your post...
I learned the difference between a medium and a message at the Joint Service Cryptologic Center and School, Goodfellow AFB, San Angelo, Texas, in 1974. But thanks ever so much for demonstrating that YOU understand the difference.
I understand and have been educated to the legal difference between interception and communicating the contents of an intercept. I also know *EXACTLY* what happens when someone tells the FBI you have been intercepting cellular, whether you have actually communicated the content of an intercept or not. They investigate you and you had better hope they can not prove you have intercepted cellular, never mind actually communicating the content.
Now, friend, I don't mind you having a hard on for the cellular companies, or the ECPA, 'cause I've been dealing with the actual process of intercepting, analyzing, cryptanalyzing, and reporting communications for about thirty-three years now and I don't think much of the laws they make either, but I can't for the life of me understand why you and I are here argueing about something we both know to be true... We both know you are not going to do what you want with any signal that crosses your property... BECAUSE...
Quote from your OWN post:
Where the ECPA differs from all past US laws is in making it the responsibility of everyone in range of a wide-area radio signal to avoid receiving it.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| 
Piobaireachd
Happy Halloween
Premium
join:2000-09-21
Port Orchard, WA
| But the Secret Service told me!
Nip it in the bud! |
| |
| 
pipdipchip
8 Megabits A Second
Premium
join:2003-12-04
Hanover, MN
| Computer Laws So...... I'm so sick of these dumb computer laws that make no sense. I'm sorry but who put some 50+ guys in charge of making computer laws like the DMCA for example? I could MAYBE MAYBE! see a cop pulling you over if you were "abusing" a private persons internet access. But wouldn't a library's internet access be public domain? It just makes no sense to me. "Theft of signal"? Come on. | |
| |
pipdipchip
8 Megabits A Second
Premium
join:2003-12-04
Hanover, MN | Re: Computer Laws So...... I can see why he didn't want to go in. At my the old library I used to go to the library staff were b*tches. I know that seems immature but they really were. Small town I guess. | |
| | | | |
pipdipchip
8 Megabits A Second
Premium
join:2003-12-04
Hanover, MN
1 edit | Re: Computer Laws So...... Yeah really come on. Cops should stop pulling over people for fake laws and go out their and really do there job. How did the cop even know he was using the library's internet access? I mean in court what would the cop say. "He had a computer in front of the library." The judge would probably say, "A computer in front of a library?!?!? My god. What has this world turned into?" | |
| | | | 
roamer1
sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA
clubs:
| Re: Computer Laws So...... said by pipdipchip :
Yeah really come on. Cops should stop pulling over people for fake laws and go out their and really do there job. How did the cop even know he was using the library's internet access?
True...I could very well be sitting outside the same library and using a connection from T-Mobile (GPRS, not Hotspot), Verizon Wireless, etc. and *NOT* the library's Wi-Fi.
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ | |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| said by pipdipchip :
I'm so sick of these dumb computer laws that make no sense. I'm sorry but who put some 50+ guys in charge of making computer laws like the DMCA for example? ....
Well, let's see. Who did choose the 535 guys and gals who sit in the US Capitol and make laws? We did. (Oh, you didn't vote? Well, if you're a US citizen and didn't vote, you took a pass. Kwitcherbitchen. If you're not a US citizen, you're a guest, so you can kwitcherbitchen too.)
Now if you voted, and your side lost, you need to convince more people next time. And if you voted, and your side won, you need to convince your victorious elected representative to do the right thing.
(The above is typical of an representative democracy, sometimes called a democratic republic. I realize that this is harder than screaming "ME WANT THIS! MAKE IT SO!", but it's also a trifle more adult.)
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| ithxp
join:2002-11-13
Toms River, NJ
| Load OF Shit Guys lets face facts here
unless you are told by the pople who pay for the net to let you use it that not iligal but if your some idiot who cant pay for his own and gota "wardriver" it or get free from some one els with them knowing....
i would personaly hack there system
belive me alot of people in my state use network moniter programs and tell whos on and whos not plus it tells IP address
--
»community.webshots.com/s/image6/···i_fs.jpg | |
|
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
3 edits | What 'bout vendor responsibility? The vendors, the WiFi alliance, and the IEEE, have all dropped the ball when it comes to protecting the public with respect to 802.11b!
It frustrates me no end when I see vendors, who KNOW, about the problems with WiFi not makeing ANY effort to mitigate them.
How hard would it be to REQUIRE the installer of an AP to set the system SSID? Why haven't the vendors written their software so that that was a requirement? Why hasn't WiFi alliance called for that? The answer is simple enough, they are about dollars, nothing more and nothing less.
Whenever we have this discussion about whether or not War Driving is moral or not, it always boils down to, "They left the doors open", "They didn't even change the SSID".
The user should be REQUIRED by the firmware to set a password and SSID before the unit will operate.
The industry should agree upon a standard word, phrase, or symbol which is a mandatory part of the SSID if the network is to be available for public access.
Those two steps would go a very long way to quelling this debate but they have not been addressed by the vendors because there is no money in them.
So here, "war drivers", I'll do it for you. If the word PUBLIC is not part of the SSID, you should assume the network is NOT PUBLIC. Really kiddies, how hard is this anyway?
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| that access point ? How is theft of Signal, theft of service ? However i think if someone is transmitting and your in range, its there responsility to limit the signals distance. Second how could he prove, that he was using that wifi access point, and not an aircard, or GPRS?
--
Go back to HS, just start a political discussion. It will be just like you were a kid! | |
| |
DaDogs
Semper Vigilantis
Premium
join:2004-02-28
Deltaville, VA
| Re: that access point ? said by DaveNJ :
How is theft of Signal, theft of service ? However i think if someone is transmitting and your in range, its there responsility to limit the signals distance. Second how could he prove, that he was using that wifi access point, and not an aircard, or GPRS?
Theft of signal (Intercept) is not theft of service but it may well be theft of data, or invasion of privacy. I presume you understood what you said when you said, "theft of signal".
Theft of service is what happens as soon as you associate with someone's access point against their will. This is simply because they own the access point and therefor they own the service provided by the access point.
The simple act of associating with an access point can be argued to be theft of service because the access point is a computer system. The law on using a computer system without the authorization of the owner of the system is clear.
So you see it is possible to be guilty of a felony without even associating with an access point and it is possible to steal service without accessing the internet.
--
»members.ozemail.com.au/~lbrash/msjokes/ | |
| 
File Quit
Mac Geek
Premium
join:2002-11-28
| I'll be waiting... for IPD to tell me that i can't surf on a wireless connection outside. I also warwalk and have no officers stop me.
--
Mozilla Firefox. Switch today to rid yourself of IE and its flaws. »www.mozilla.org/firefox | |
| 
User0101
Premium
join:2002-12-12
S-ZZ9-PZA
clubs:
| So Wait... So... you guys mean that if I go to Best Buy and get me a fancy LinkSys 802.11x Wireless Router that I've got to setup one of those "Eee Ess Ess" Id's or encryption thingamabobs?
Come on man.. plug and play! Don't you all know somebody who works on computers or somebody's nephew or something that does this kind of stuff. He's probably in his teens and can set these things up in no time flat. Man! Why not just trust him? He's got to know what he's doing which exonerates me from having any responsibility of what I'm doing... right?
/Extreme Sarcasm
While I don't War Drive, I know how. While I don't Black Hat, I know how. While I don't steal, I know those who do. What can I/We do about these things... educate!
People are just too ready to plop down and "Just make it Work!" rather than understanding how/why it should work. Another fine reason or example of the fact that NOT EVERYONE SHOULD OWN A COMPUTER. Sorry folks, hard facts to swallow.
You need some water for that? | |
| | | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| This is such crap A library is publicly funded. If a member of the public wants to use its connection, then so be it. If the library want to control it in anyway, that cop should have just asked to see his library card. When he pulled it out then the cop should have said carry on. I mean what is the difference between being in the library and being outside, but of course probably still on its property. Plus isn't airport the mac wireless junk. I don't trust the words of someone running a mac. | |
| | LadyAthasian
join:2004-03-31
Ballwin, MO
| Re: This is such crap Wow, your post started out sounding intelligent and I agreed totally. Public resource/public use on public property ...
but ... then the comment about the mac? Yes Airport is the Mac wireless hardware ... so? Being a mac user doesnt make one untrustworthy.... | |
| MrBentor
join:2003-02-18
Seattle, WA
·Comcast
| Library wireless at the park I've been to of a couple libraries which have outside tables (picnic really) and chairs for those rare sunny days that are well within the range of their public AP. One even has a nice little park next to it & there is coverage there. The other has a nice covered parking garage… | |
|
Anonymous John
@cox.net | Unused bandwidth. So, dose all this mean that I shouldn't use my neighbors connection to upload DVD's? | |
| | 
jrep
join:2001-11-03
Racine, WI | Re: Unused bandwidth. Only if you offer to rip him an extra copy and give him a free bag of mircrowave popcorn!!!
--
live fast, die young, leave a goodlooking corpse | |
| | | |
|
|
Those Evil Wi-Fi Bandits
·
A few bad apples...
