Quantcast

Internet!!!!

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
no kiding!

I wouldn't advertise that I have wireless.

Also, we live in a family neighborhood, so if someone was parked, they'd get a beating from PedoBear.
Open wifi is the same leaving the front door open with a sign that says welcome all visitors on your yard or expecting that all conversations on CB radios within your home are private. Wifi propagating outside of their property is their own responsibility to secure.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
Open wifi is the same leaving the front door open with a sign that says welcome all visitors on your yard or expecting that all conversations on CB radios within your home are private. Wifi propagating outside of their property is their own responsibility to secure.
Bad analogy.

It's like leaving the keys in the ignition of your car... it's still grand theft auto 3.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,668
418
NC
It's so easy to secure now anyway that there's really no excuse.

The Linksys router I just installed for a coworker came with a CD so I thought I'd give the software a shot. It pops open, detects any Linksys equipment on your network, and gives you a nice, graphical interface to set it up and secure it with about a half dozen clicks.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
Bad analogy.

It's like leaving the keys in the ignition of your car... it's still grand theft auto 3.
No its not. Security is available on almost all wifi routers available - open setting means no access restriction and many wifi clients automatically connect to open access points without any user action.

A better analogy would be sprinkler set too high so it waters your neighbor's yard. Your neighbor is only benefiting out of user error.

LB definitely can claim his neighborhood wifi is interfering/trespassing with his RF environment in his own home - that happens all the time in densely populated neighborhoods/apartments and causes poor performance with Wifi and in some cases interference with other devices.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
29,683
2,394
Portland, OR
Before I relocated my router, I got a stronger signal from my neighbors house when I was in the garage (it's detached from the house) and it was nice to have good throughput.

But now I can connect to the city wifi from the garage, so it's all good. If I wanted, I could get a repeater for the garage and get it in the house, but the city network throughput isn't as good.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
You can't define laws as you please. Someone got arrested and charged. The case is pending. In the meantime, based on the arrest, it's illegal to access open wifi without authorzation
It has no absolute relevance and there is no generally established laws.

from JD's article:

Is it legal to use someone's Wi-Fi connection to browse the Web if they haven't put a password on it?
Nobody really knows. "It's a totally open question in the law," says Neal Katyal, a professor of criminal law at Georgetown University. "There are arguments on both sides."
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
Thats because they have no idea WTF they are legislating about and that is local legislation - it has no absolute relevance.
Ah, right, you know everything... you should go down there an educate them.

Bottomline is... today, you can be arrested anywhere in the USA for accessing open wifi without authorization. That's the end of the story.

Steal wifi at your own risk. (no judgement from me cuz I couldn't care less)
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
Bottomline is... today, you can be arrested anywhere in the USA for accessing open wifi without authorization. That's the end of the story.
Absolutely not - see quote in last post. No generally accepted laws established.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
Absolutely not - see quote in last post. No generally accepted laws established.
What part of "arrest" do you not understand? They can arrest you and since no legislation has been formed that says that it is clearly legal, then it's not a false arrest.

If being arrested, booked and charged sounds like a good time, go for it.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
What part of "arrest" do you not understand? They can arrest you and since no legislation has been formed that says that it is clearly legal, then it's not a false arrest.

If being arrested, booked and charged sounds like a good time, go for it.
Actually they also have laws proposed to prosecute the providers too even if they aren't offering free access:

http://www.westchestergov.com/WhatsNew/Press/PRwireless.htm

The open access is the owner's problem too.

The proposed law would address many of these risks. The way the law reads, all commercial businesses that use wireless networks and maintain personal information would be required to have “secure networks that protect the public from potential identity theft and other potential threats such as computer viruses and data corruption.” For example, a retail establishment that uses a wireless network to process credit card transactions would be required to install a firewall, one of the easiest and least expensive ways to guard a network from attack. They would have to file a note of compliance with the county.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
Too?

So you've changed opinion then?
As the CNET article says there are arguments on both sides. Its not clear legally but technologically open means no access restrictions. If you leave your network open no authorization is the choice you made when you set it up.
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
As the CNET article says there are arguments on both sides. Its not clear legally but technologically open means no access restrictions. If you leave your network open no authorization is the choice you made when you set it up.
Jesus dude, WTF is your problem?

You cannot define laws you 'tard.

Until there's legislation, your comment, "If you leave your network open no authorization is the choice you made..." is absolutely recockulous.

You're trying way too hard to justify 'stealing' access.
 

CrabJoe StretchPants

Reincarnated Crab Walking Head Spinning Bruce Dick
Nov 30, 2003
11,569
422
Groton, MA
Opie for prez.

Look at Syadasti's title...........if you can't steal wireless, how's he going to surf the internets when he rides his fixie down to the local Starbucks?
 

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,033
1
Denver
Opie for prez.
ha! :D

and there it is...D
Let's be clear here, I'm not passing judgement on ANYONE. I steal music off the 'net... but I am stealing.

EDIT: I used to steal, I no longer steal music, it was stealing. I was wrong. I have since deleted it all and no longer steal anything. Not that I'm some reformed and better person, but rather I have a kid on the way and I gotta behave for him.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
29,683
2,394
Portland, OR
As the CNET article says there are arguments on both sides. Its not clear legally but technologically open means no access restrictions. If you leave your network open no authorization is the choice you made when you set it up.
Unless it's declared "free access" as in the wifi at the coffee shop, or in downtown Portland (where you have to agree to usage terms) it's still stealing.

Burglary is still burglary, even if the door is open.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
Jesus dude, WTF is your problem?

You cannot define laws you 'tard.
And there are no laws yet you tard so its not clear either way.

Technologically open means no authorization is required to access the network.

Open access can be clearly be unintentional. Many OS like WinXP SP2 and OSX may be configured to automatically connect to any available wireless network and embedded wifi clients in various devices may do the same. Some computers/devices will join the network without any visible indication depending on configuration. A user maybe intend to join one network may instead end up on another one if the signal is stronger maybe they have no clue what they are doing or the SSIDs are the same because they were not changed from default. It can be unintentional on the side of the server, client, or both.
 

BMXman

I wish I was Canadian
Sep 8, 2001
13,854
0
Victoria, BC
ha! :D


Let's be clear here, I'm not passing judgement on ANYONE. I steal music off the 'net... but I am stealing.

EDIT: I used to steal, I no longer steal music, it was stealing. I was wrong. I have since deleted it all and no longer steal anything. Not that I'm some reformed and better person, but rather I have a kid on the way and I gotta behave for him.
I agree I used to do the same thing..steal internet, cable TV and music...but I have since reformed my ways....I say good on you...although there may be no current specific laws on wireless stealing, it's pretty simple....LB is stealing something that does not belong to him....no judgment here I just wouldn't do it...D
 

BMXman

I wish I was Canadian
Sep 8, 2001
13,854
0
Victoria, BC
And there are no laws yet you tard so its not clear either way.

Technologically open means no authorization is required to access the network.

Open access can be clearly be unintentional. Many OS like WinXP SP2 and OSX may be configured to automatically connect to any available wireless network and embedded wifi clients in various devices may do the same. Some computers/devices will join the network without any visible indication depending on configuration. A user maybe intend to join one network may instead end up on another one if the signal is stronger maybe they have no clue what they are doing or the SSIDs are the same because they were not changed from default. It can be unintentional on the side of the server, client, or both.
I don't see how this is relevant...it's clearly being stolen and LB knows this.....D
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
29,683
2,394
Portland, OR
It can be unintentional on the side of the server, client, or both.
If I hold a gun that is loaded, but since I didn't load it nor did I check to see if it was loaded, am I still at fault if it goes off and kills someone?

Answer:Yes, I am.

Ignorance is not bliss, it's ignorance.