page: 1 · 2  |
 
WOOO-WOOO
@198.22.x.x
| uh huh So the MAC wasn't tracked by the P2P program? Hey I think I'm going to be keeping a wireless router with me at all times, so if the FEDs don't like something I do from my computer, I can blame the teenagers down the street. Good show, Ohio man. Good show. | |
|  | 
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Sterling Heights, MI
| Re: uh huh The MAC most likely would belong to the router.
said by "Article :
Paramount had the police seize his four computers, but nothing was found.
said by "2nd Article :
Paramount has looked at all four computers in Lee's home, alleging he had one of them cleaned to erase evidence. The company has filed a federal lawsuit against the Blue Ash man.
That should be sufficient to get him off the hook. As most of the people here know erasing a drive so that you can find no evidence isn't just deleting the file.
I have wireless in my home, it is secure, but since I can use it, others could use it if they really wanted to.
--
I have two favorite sports teams, University of Michigan and whoever is playing Michigan State. | |
| | | 
Vamp
5c077
Premium
join:2003-01-28
MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: uh huh said by Kilroy  :The MAC most likely would belong to the router. said by "Article :
Paramount had the police seize his four computers, but nothing was found.
said by "2nd Article :
Paramount has looked at all four computers in Lee's home, alleging he had one of them cleaned to erase evidence. The company has filed a federal lawsuit against the Blue Ash man.
That should be sufficient to get him off the hook. As most of the people here know erasing a drive so that you can find no evidence isn't just deleting the file. I have wireless in my home, it is secure, but since I can use it, others could use it if they really wanted to. Yeah sounds like he ran DBAN.
Although, that should be no reason to consider it getting rid of evidence, some people like me DBAN just for the hell of it before formatting.
--
space for rent | |
| | | | donaldk
Premium
join:2000-10-19
Thunder Bay, ON | Re: uh huh and some people use DBAN because it is corporate procedure  .. oops one PC getting it right now in the basement. | |
| | | MrBentor
join:2003-02-18
Seattle, WA
| said by Kilroy :
That should be sufficient to get him off the hook. As most of the people here know erasing a drive so that you can find no evidence isn't just deleting the file.
Actually not. Contrary to common belief, generally, and in practice, you are guilty until proven innocent. This is especially true in a civil claims. You have to disprove an allegation and the burden of proof against a defendant is much lower then a criminal court. | |
| | | | | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by WOOO-WOOO :
So the MAC wasn't tracked by the P2P program? Hey I think I'm going to be keeping a wireless router with me at all times, so if the FEDs don't like something I do from my computer, I can blame the teenagers down the street. Good show, Ohio man. Good show.
I doubt he'll get very far with that defense. After all this is a civil case and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" defense won't fly very far. If he has a way to prove it wasn't him(witnesses that he wasn't home), maybe. He'll have to go to court to have a chance at winning. But settling will be a lot cheaper.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: uh huh "But settling will be a lot cheaper".
AND THAT is the fundamental problem with our court system. It's no longer about justice, it's about costs. The RIAA knows that, the MPAA knows that. They are using the court systems as a sledgehammer, to force people of limited means to settle in the interest of costs. In the real world, that's called 'racketeering and extortion'. As to why they haven't been prosecuted under the RICO act is beyond me.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
| | | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Re: uh huh Actually, I believe one person who was sued has counter-sued the RIAA under RICO. I can't remember the details now, but I hope that the RIAA loses because this is extortion. They sue you (to get your contact info), then pull you aside and say "Look, this could be a really expensive lawsuit. You might wind up owing millions of dollars to us. Wouldn't you much rather make it all go away for the paltry settlement fee of $3,000. Just sign here. No, you don't have to sign it. Then again, it would be a shame if the courts took away your house and all of your possessions, wouldn't it?" That sure sounds like extortion to me.
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
| | | 
bentman78
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
·Comcast
| I disagree...the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he downloaded the stuff. They had the police invade his home and take his computers. If there isn't any evidence on his PC's he had those files what can they do?
While I disagree (for the most part) with pirating music, if they are going to sue, they need to have the proof. If I was a juror (not sure if they use jurors in civil cases or not) I wouldn't find him guilty unless they can prove he actually did it and have evidence it was him...other than shitty ISP logs. | |
| | | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: uh huh said by bentman78 :I disagree...the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he downloaded the stuff.... not sure if they use jurors in civil cases or not In civil law there is no such thing as "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is purely a criminal standard. In civil law the standard is a "preponderance of the evidence". And that means there can be evidence against the plaintiff, but if the plaintiff has MOST OF the evidence, they can still win.
Many trials in civil court are heard just by judges, but a jury trial can be demanded by the defendant(except in small claims court). The disadvantage of a jury trial is that if the defendant loses, they also get to pick up all the significant costs of a jury trial as well.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | | | | radarman
join:2005-06-01
Odenton, MD
| Re: uh huh Actually, for most people, there is an even lower standard - can they afford the first day of court?
The bottom line is, you can easily spend more than the settlement would cost just walking through the door with a halfway competent attorney.
This is how the RIAA manages to extort so much money - they know that the people they are suing can't afford a real legal battle, and the people they are suing realize it as well. In most cases, they are probably guilty of what they are being accused of - but it really doesn't matter, does it?
This is why a lot of scam artists threaten to sue when someone reveals their scheme on the Internet. It is cheaper to back off than risk going to court. | |
| | | | | | | | |
bentman78
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA | Re: uh huh I see...
However bing a juror, I'd have to see more proof, more than ISP logs anway. However if it's in the hands of a judge then who knows what will happen. | |
| | | | | | nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
| Re: uh huh and if this guy defends himself, I don't know if he will be able to pick a jury with smart people like you.... the prosecution will pick dumb people who will believe the logs, and won't be able to comprehend that someone could have masked the MAC or IP address... | |
| | | | | | |
bentman78
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
·Comcast
| Re: uh huh this is one of my fears as well. I think we will only see more cases such as this in the future.
My feeling is this:
there will be more and more cases of what the media calls "cyber-crime" and "hackers" (I hate the term myself, the media misuses it) that will breech our headlines and our courts. Unfortunately most people don't have a good understanding of the technologies involved. This goes for jurors, judges and especially lawyers who seem to be stifling innovation at best in my opinion. Basically you have people judging without being truly aware of all of the implications involved, security, copyright laws or otherwise.
What I guess I am trying to say is this guy won't get a fair chance because a majority of the people involved don't really know what a MAC/IP address even is let alone being aware of MAC spoofing, cracking WEP keys (I am aware this guys AP was unsecured) or anything else more advanced than "surfin' tha net'. This goes for the lawyers as well, and I seriously doubt a technical expert will be consulted on this case to verify the defendants arguments. Is it likely someone sat in his driveway and use his connection? No. Feasible? certainly, and you might not even have to be that close. I pick up peoples AP's from across the street, it's weak but I can get it.
The problem is our judicial system isn't prepared for the next phase in society that will become highly technical. This goes for our patents system as well and there needs to be revisions soon as more and more cases such as this show up. If this man is found guilty on the pretense that "we have logs", he possibly could have downloaded stuff, he should be responsible for his open AP it will set a new precedence for future judgements in this case. I am certainly no expert in law, I just can't see where the MPAA has the evidence or what the defendants rights are. I noted somewhere down the thread that property can't be seized in a civil case, then it turns criminal and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" kicks in, is this true?
Might I also bring up the case in Tampa where the man was found guilty of "hacking" by using someones access point that wasn't his? Many people supported him being charged with a crime because he was using a connection that wasn't his. How is this any different. Should this guy in Cincinnati or where ever be responsible because someone used his connection. According to the case in Tamps he shouldn't....where does the line end and where does it begin? | |
| | | | | | | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: uh huh said by bentman78 :I noted somewhere down the thread that property can't be seized in a civil case, then it turns criminal and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" kicks in, is this true? No. But it is a separate civil procedure to get a judgement against property. That is you can lose a civil suit, but if you refuse to pay, the winner has to go back into court to get a judgement to seize the losers assets.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | 
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
| agree. would pick the dumb that think anything in ISP logs is 100% proof. but it is also possible that a WAP crashes and resets to defaults AFTER it was set up securely without the operator knowing anything about it. wasn't using mine for a bit as wasn't working from home and kept getting emails from Charter sayign ASF or whomever and MPAA were saying I was trading shit. Updated the FW and moved do another subnet so if it defaults again there's no access from it. But it is quite a plausible defense and if it's true I hope he wins. | |
| | | | | | | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| said by nonner9 :and if this guy defends himself, I don't know if he will be able to pick a jury with smart people like you.... the prosecution will pick dumb people who will believe the logs, and won't be able to comprehend that someone could have masked the MAC or IP address... I'm pick dumb people as well, and I would act very dumb myself. Dumb people would be more willing to believe your wireless network was 'hacked' and computer nerds took advantage of you. Not to mention, everyone of them would put themselves in your shoes as a dumb computer illiterate who is being rail-roaded by a huge, wealthy interest group. | |
| | | | | 
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by nightshade74 :said by bentman78 :I disagree...the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he downloaded the stuff. Actually the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" (the civil standard) Which is a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the criminal standard) With that being said... It's within the realm of reason that an open wifi spot attracted the P2P crowd. Whether it is the most likely cause (again civil standard) remains to be seen. Yes, but the question that will have to be answered in this civil tort is if the defendant had an obligation to insure his access point was secure from this crowd. Was he negligent? Was the manufacturer negligent? Was the unit defective? Were significant instructions supplied to prevent this malicious act? Is the defendant jointly liable? The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. I believe the defendant has a real shot at winning this case. My guess is the industry will never let this get to trial. what if this guy from ohio wins and sets a precedent with wireless access points? can the industry really afford this? | |
| | | | | | 
longstreet
join:2004-11-14 | Re: uh huh preponderence of evidence and any sane thinking person= beyond a reasonable doubt | |
| | |
longstreet
join:2004-11-14 | Actually, they'll have to prove that he uploaded it, not the other way around. | |
| | |
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by WOOO-WOOO :
So the MAC wasn't tracked by the P2P program? Hey I think I'm going to be keeping a wireless router with me at all times, so if the FEDs don't like something I do from my computer, I can blame the teenagers down the street. Good show, Ohio man. Good show.
I doubt he'll get very far with that defense. After all this is a civil case and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" defense won't fly very far. If he has a way to prove it wasn't him(witnesses that he wasn't home), maybe. He'll have to go to court to have a chance at winning. But settling will be a lot cheaper. as I said in my last post, in a civil matter, there is no guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it's the preponderence of evidence.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | one upload isnt worth 100k, he should send them a check for the value of the DVD and tell them to F**K off.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| mAlfunkti0n
join:2003-12-16
Loveland, OH
 ·BroadVoice
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
December 14th, @09:22AM
| Hurrrr As much as I hate the **AA I seriously doubt this will get the guy any points from the court. If he is near Cincinnati the maximum upload speed from any carrier around here is 1Mbit .. at that rate the wardriver would be sitting out in his driveway for awhile.
If the guy lives in a sub division like me, his neighbors could have done it too. From my living room I have access to about 5 unsecured AP's, that I am able to connect to, that give me internet access.
Edit : Just read the article .. Blue Ash is about 10 minutes away from my office, and about 15 from my home. | |
| | 
TexasGuy
49 States And Texas
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Houston, TX | Re: Hurrrr I got like 3 connections here, all WEP. If I had time and interest, I could get their keys. | |
| | | whoamIoramI
join:2004-05-17
Jersey City, NJ
moderated:
December 14th, @11:52AM
| Re: Hurrrr How?
I'm secured via WEP. Thats the 26 digit key right?
I hate hackers. I just had to get a new bank account bec my stock broker was hacked and they took all my account info including bank, ssn, and drivers license. | |
| | | | cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| Re: Hurrrr There are cracking programs available via the internet that can crack wep keys in 10 minutes or less, even the more complex ones.
The only way to be secure on the internet is to have a VPN connection to the other server or if doing things via the web use https which is encrypted web traffic. | |
| | | | | 
bmupton
join:2001-08-19
Saskatoon, SK | Re: Hurrrr You are incorrect sir, the only TRUE way to be secure on the internet is to NOT BE on the internet.
This post may have been laced with copious amounts of sarcasm, I'll leave it up to you fine folks to figure out wether that's true or not. | |
| | | | 
maartena
Super Grover
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
edit:
December 14th, @10:35AM
| WEP is very insecure. It was the first technology available to secure wireless networks, and unfortunately its still the most widely used. Its strong enough to keep someone out who only has an operating system with a wireless network driver program trying to connect to a network, but someone that knows a little about computers, can type "hacking wep" into Google, and has a laptop can break a WEP code within the half hour (some sites claim within MINUTES), and access everything that someone with the WEP code would have access to, including shared drives in your LAN. It is said that even WPA is insecure enough to be hacked within that same time amount, and with tools widely available.
If you really want a secure Wireless Network, use a computer as a router (e.g. a Linux box or a Windows machine) and install a Wirelss Access Point in your network. You can password protect access to the Internet by requiring the computer to log on to the Linux Box before being allowed to access the Internet. If you also password protect all your shares in the LAN, someone that will crack the WEP key will still need that password to access the internet, and needs passwords to access computers, and basically ends up in a WLAN he can't do anything in.
And hacking a Windows or Linux password (both Kerberos based I believe) is a whole different subject and is almost impossible.
The residential wireless routers people buy at Best Buy or CompUSA are the most insecure part of a home computer setup. And yes, I use one so people could access the Internet through mine if they hacked it. (Just not my computers as I don't have open shares)
Either way, if you think you are secure with WEP....
Think again. | |
| | | | | whoamIoramI
join:2004-05-17
Jersey City, NJ | Re: Hurrrr DAmn it!
So even though my network is secured to the best of my ability i get screwed if some dumb schumk decides to break in????
Hmmm, so can my router block other computers except mine? I have a D-link | |
| | | | | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | | |
3-D
@69.15.x.x
| "And hacking a Windows or Linux password (both Kerberos based I believe) is a whole different subject and is almost impossible."
Incorrect. The passwords are not "kerberos based". Kerberos does not know your password. A kerberos TICKET is returned by a kerberos enabled DOMAIN to allow access to services on that domain without requiring each service to authenticate your password. Essentially the ticket is just proof that you've been authenticated by the central authority on your domain.
As for the password being "almost impossible" to get, you are again incorrect. With how much memory systems can have these days, it is possible to crack any NTLM password (used for windows shares when a domain is not present hence no kerberos for share authentication, as is the case for most home users) with 14 characters or less in 10 minutes or less with a huge pre-built table of password hashes.
See »www.antsight.com/zsl/rainbowcrack/ for details.
The only way to secure your home network against war driving is to simply not use wireless. Wireless removes the physical security layer. Once you remove that, make no mistake, you have *no* control over the security of your network in the end. | |
| |
anomus
@rr.com
| Right this minute, I have 2 wireless pc's connected to 2 unsecured wireless routers in my neighborhood. Both of them are endlessly emuleing "large files". I changed the passwwords on each router and configured port forwarding for connection to emule. I also enabled remote administration so I could monitor router status from any pc I am at anywhere in the world. This has been going on for months and the neighbors dont suspect a thing. They still connect to the internet whenever they want. If they get smart and try to enter the configureation page, they wont be able to until they figure out to push the reset buttons on their routers. At this point all my setups will vanish and all the logs will be cleared without ever being seen. I will then become aware that the owner is a little smarter and procede acordingly. This has been working satifactorily enough that I have put off installing my own cable line. I can connect to 3 other routers in my area but they either changed their passwords so I cant configure ports, or they just dont stay connected all day to the internet. I have never seen a router yet with WEP activated. Cool Huh? | |
| | |
See 9 replies to this post | |
TexasGuy
49 States And Texas
Premium
join:2002-12-02
Houston, TX | Well, it is possible... Here is a reasonable doubt... | |
| | nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
| Re: Well, it is possible... I don't think reasonable doubt applies in the same way in civil courts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in civil lawsuits, the defense has to prove he didn't do anything wrong, and the prosecution has to prove that he did in fact do something wrong, then it's up to a jury to decide who they believe more... | |
| | | 
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: Well, it is possible... You're correct. You just need preponderance of the evidence. | |
| nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
| How does the RIAA know ????? How would they know if someone is uploading something or not?
If it's via those peer to peer programs, then it's possible they got the user's ID and somehow got his personal information from it....
but I don't see anyway that the RIAA could know if someone got onto your wireless network and uploaded files from a shared directory....
so, I think the guy is lieing, because I don't think RIAA can track someone copying files over a wireless network (not the Internet). | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| The key is to make the accusation STICK Lets be fair, the odds of someone uploading from a driveway are slim to none, BUT, that's not the issue. Lets look at the FACTS of the cast:
FACT #1: They took his computers, and did NOT FIND A COPY of the movie on his computer.
FACT #2: They have NO PROOF that it was him. Sure the wi-fi is far fetched, but it's remotely possible
FACT #3: He NEVER admitted it. There is NO ADMISSION of guilt anywhere.
FACT #4: NO PROOF of Loss. They can't prove that his computer upload 1, 100 or even 1000 copies. It's just hearsay.
Problems: This is being prosecuted as a civil case. The $100,000.00 for a 12.99 shoplifting case, which would merit a fine of 50.00 is outrageous. In comparison, The median cost of a human life in a wrongful death (civil case) is $941,000.00. (from the department of justice web site). As far as the MPAA is concerned then, a human beings life is worth less than 10 of their movies?
Problem: It puts the MPAA in a huge bind. In a jury trial, they may win, in fact, probably will win. But the amounts they are asking for are laughable. The jury might settle for a $50.00 fine, or something similar to shoplifting. (note: the average pirate caught at a flea market, with 300+ DVD's pays a $220.00 fine). If that becomes the de-facto settlement per movie in a settlement, the MPAA can't possibly win.
What does this prove? Very simply. Suing your customers is a bad busines decision. You can't win. Sure, there will ALWAYS be pirates, but for 21.99, most people consider that a reasonable price. Of course, to the MPAA I say, once we all get 100mb/100mb pipes, you're going to have to lower the price even more, since if I can download the movie in 5 minutes flat with no hassle, you can kiss your $21.99 goodbye. Oooh, and you've already lost the entire under 25 crowd with your tactics, so plan on piracy totals increasing... noticeably. Might be a good time to change the fundamentals of your business model mr. movie guy.
--
Sure the internet has lots of porn and piracy, but I'm sure there's a downside to it. | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
deadzoned
Premium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
·Cox HSI
| Wait and see We shall see the real facts come out later. This guy is probably more savvy than he's acting right now. The MPAA looks to have been a little overzealous yet again. We won't know until more details emerge though.
The sad thing is that either way you look at it - it's gonna cost this guy some money because of one stupid movie that you can buy for 20 bucks or less most anywhere.
One thing is for sure, it would be real handy to have the police at your beck and call whenever you THINK something might have been stolen from you. How the MPAA/RIAA get away with that is anyone's guess. You would think more people would take notice and start asking questions or something. I guess when there's money to be made.... | |
| 
Roundboy
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Drexel Hill, PA
| excellent This is an excellent defense.
They can proove it was his CONNECTION .. not him personally. Yes, this is the same as having left keys in a car and someone steals it.
Especially if NO recovered evidence was found on his computer. So he either didn't do it, or he is better then simply just deleting the file.
I think this guy is playing it very well.
Added to this the lack of real wireless security present in consumer wireless devices, this gives a valid excuse to many tech savy downloaders.
--
[spoiler]Steve the pirate DIES![/spoiler] | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
Amused Bewilerment
@204.62.x.x | Setup? Me thinks the guy may be smarter than he appears. Could it be that he has set up the MPAA for this trial? Interesting thought. I wonder how the MPAA/RIAA would react if they realized that that there were "webmines" being planted to get them? | |
| | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: Setup? said by Amused Bewilerment :
Me thinks the guy may be smarter than he appears. Could it be that he has set up the MPAA for this trial? Interesting thought. I wonder how the MPAA/RIAA would react if they realized that that there were "webmines" being planted to get them?
That's in the back of my mind now after reading all this. That could be a very good possibility. | |
| | | dibbers
join:2003-09-19
·Time Warner VOIP
| Re: Setup? said by Cheese :said by Amused Bewilerment :
Me thinks the guy may be smarter than he appears. Could it be that he has set up the MPAA for this trial? Interesting thought. I wonder how the MPAA/RIAA would react if they realized that that there were "webmines" being planted to get them?
That's in the back of my mind now after reading all this. That could be a very good possibility. Seriously, what are you guys talking about? Are you saying that maybe this guy made himself into some kind of MPAA honeypot to get them to find and sue him?
I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you are thinking. | |
| | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: Setup? said by dibbers :said by Cheese :said by Amused Bewilerment :
Me thinks the guy may be smarter than he appears. Could it be that he has set up the MPAA for this trial? Interesting thought. I wonder how the MPAA/RIAA would react if they realized that that there were "webmines" being planted to get them?
That's in the back of my mind now after reading all this. That could be a very good possibility. Seriously, what are you guys talking about? Are you saying that maybe this guy made himself into some kind of MPAA honeypot to get them to find and sue him? I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you are thinking. That's exactly what I was thinking, you are telling me you don't think someone can or would do this with all the crap with the **AA going on? I am not saying this IS the case, but it COULD be a possibility. | |
| | | | | dibbers
join:2003-09-19
·Time Warner VOIP
| Re: Setup? said by Cheese :said by dibbers :said by Cheese :said by Amused Bewilerment :
Me thinks the guy may be smarter than he appears. Could it be that he has set up the MPAA for this trial? Interesting thought. I wonder how the MPAA/RIAA would react if they realized that that there were "webmines" being planted to get them?
That's in the back of my mind now after reading all this. That could be a very good possibility. Seriously, what are you guys talking about? Are you saying that maybe this guy made himself into some kind of MPAA honeypot to get them to find and sue him? I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you are thinking. That's exactly what I was thinking, you are telling me you don't think someone can or would do this with all the crap with the **AA going on? I am not saying this IS the case, but it COULD be a possibility. That actually sounds possible, I honestly just wasn't sure what you guys were saying/implying. I hadn't heard the term "webmines" before, but it sounded similar to what I'd call a "honeypot". | |
| | | | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: Setup? said by dibbers :said by Cheese :said by dibbers :said by Cheese :said by Amused Bewilerment :
Me thinks the guy may be smarter than he appears. Could it be that he has set up the MPAA for this trial? Interesting thought. I wonder how the MPAA/RIAA would react if they realized that that there were "webmines" being planted to get them?
That's in the back of my mind now after reading all this. That could be a very good possibility. Seriously, what are you guys talking about? Are you saying that maybe this guy made himself into some kind of MPAA honeypot to get them to find and sue him? I'm not sure if I'm understanding what you are thinking. That's exactly what I was thinking, you are telling me you don't think someone can or would do this with all the crap with the **AA going on? I am not saying this IS the case, but it COULD be a possibility. That actually sounds possible, I honestly just wasn't sure what you guys were saying/implying. I hadn't heard the term "webmines" before, but it sounded similar to what I'd call a "honeypot". Yea, his word, not mine | |
| SilentMan
join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
| Any Help for WEPPERS What if you transfer all of your *paid* music CDs to your music server located in the basement and then used a laptop in the living room connected to your stereo to listen to your music. The transmission between the laptop and the music server is through a wireless modem/router, like the Verizon 327w with a WEP encryption. What then must be done to keep intruders from getting access to your music server and thus getting ahold of the music folder which must be shared in order for the laptop in the living room to access the music files on the server?
Any link that would help in making a WEP encryption harder to break? | |
| |
kaneda74
@comcast.net
| Re: Any Help for WEPPERS yeah, stop using WEP, WPA has been out for awhile now. upgrade your drivers and firmware and use WPA.
i believe it is harder to crack then WEP.
still where there is a will there is a way.
here is a link i found that compares the two:
»www.openxtra.co.uk/articles/wpa-vs-wep.php | |
| | | 
Xenomorph
join:2000-06-10
Fenton, MO
| Re: Any Help for WEPPERS switching to WPA means half my computers wont be able to use the internet connection at my home because they only do WEP.
if they have the newest drivers, how can i get WPA?
--
»xenomorph.net/ | |
| | | |
maartena
Super Grover
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
| Re: Any Help for WEPPERS Replace the wireless router and the wireless adapters as well. Switching to WPA means investing in new hardware that supports it.
--
"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." - Bush, May 2004. | |
| | nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
| Actually, you don't need any ecryption if you don't want.
The reason being is that it's against the law for people to come onto your network and take your files. And since those files belong to you, if someone takes them, it's considered theft. |
|
|
|
Wasn't Me, Wardrivers Did It
