Slashdot Mirror


Large-Format Printable Wardriving Maps of Seattle

drewzhrodague writes "In what is sure to tie up a few print queues, us guys at WiFiMaps.com have released large-format printable maps of Seattle. These were generated during a collaboration with the University of Washington's communications department. This is one of the most comprehensive Wi-Fi mapping project to date, as 100 undergrads swarmed downtown Seattle to collect wardriving data. We've rendered their results at 300dpi, for letter, tabloid, and architectural E sized paper. There is both the standard layout, and the aerial versions available using bittorrent."

204 comments

  1. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see my house from that map

    1. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see your house too.

    2. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can see my house from that map

      I can see mine too... It's clearly marked default... d'oh!

    3. Re:OMG by agoodm · · Score: 1

      Hosted on my fast server for your convenience. Hosted for a limited time as this is eating bandwidth... UW Printable maps non bittorent fast mirror http://files.photojerk.com/wifiuwprodraster.zip for raster map!!! Use http://files.photojerk.com/wifiuwprodvector.zip for vector map. Alan

  2. Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by stephenisu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I am cool with it, keep in mind there are some possible legal implications to wardriving.

    --
    Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
    1. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      However, warmongering is sanctioned by congress.

    2. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      probably qualifies as Theft of Services?

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by stephenisu · · Score: 1

      And unauthorized entry to a computer network, depending on how it's looked at and how you do it.

      --
      Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
    4. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You might be hassled, but unless you live in a place with a really weird legal system, listening to an access point announcing itself to the world on a public channel, with unencrypted broadcasts, asking for its services the way you're supposed to according to the standard and then being granted these services by the access point is not illegal. Breaking through access controls (MAC-filters, WEP, login screens, etc) however is illegal. If it is illegal, build a portable access point, do a reverse war-drive and sue the heck out of everyone who connects to your access point because they have their computer in the default connect-if-you-can configuration.

    5. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by HazE_nMe · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, you can wardrive all you want provided that you do not actually connect to the APs that you are detecting. Simply detecting an AP is not a crime if you never actually access the network it is on.

    6. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by XorNand · · Score: 1

      Unbinding any protocols from your NIC before wardriving should help you there. That way you can't be accused of trying to penetrate the discovered LANs. You're also less likely to be flagged by an IDS.

      Simply detecting radio signals on publicly accessible (and unlicensed) frequencies isn't a crime.

      Of course, I'm a geek not a lawyer, so what do I know?

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    7. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, insightful

    8. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      What service? If you're just connecting to the access point and saying "There it is" without browsing the network or connecting to the intarwebs, you're not doing anything illegal.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    9. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Then what's the point of making the map if it's not to provide a means of finding the closest AP to steal from.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    10. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're astonishingly oblivious. If I were you, I'd stroll around Kabul disguised as Osama bin Laden.

    11. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of buying a world atlas if you don't plan on visiting every place.

      Duh. Sometimes it's just nice to see what's there.

    12. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's the point of buying a cookbook if you don't plan on making every single dish in it?

      This is /. what ever happened to "Do something for the sake of doing it"

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    13. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I leave my keys in my car and doors unlocked, does it make it LEGAL for you to steal MY car?
      Just becuase it's available doesn't make it legal.

      What's the difference?

    14. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by elgaard · · Score: 1

      Good question.
      I wonder if say Linksys(Cisco) have a wardriving squad just to see where the Netgear and D-link costumers live. They could probably use the BSSID instead of just relying on people not changing the default ESSID=NETGEAR,linksys.

      Or they could search for access points with a lot of clients, match them to their own costumers, and target them to sell extra accesspoints.

    15. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by wizard_of_wor · · Score: 1

      Simply detecting radio signals on publicly accessible (and unlicensed) frequencies isn't a crime.
      Yes, and in fact, the act which created the FCC specifically maintains that receiving transmissions on publicall accessible frequencies is legal in all cases, and cannot be legislated by the states. This is why state laws that outlaw passive radar detectors are ripe for overturning, although no one seems interested in doing so.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    16. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to respecting Private Property?

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    17. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by 832818 · · Score: 1

      Well, the difference is that you don't put a sign on the car that says "PLEASE TAKE THIS CAR."

      That's essentially what wireless access points do - they broadcast the fact that the wireless service is available. Maybe it's not a very good idea to have them wide open like that out of the box, but that's the manufacturer's issue.

    18. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by UserGoogol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This website is more like driving around looking for cars who left their keys in the ignition and then posting the information on the Internet. Not neccesarily ethical, but different, and maybe legal.

      (And also, it's impossible to actually "steal" the car, you can only bring it for a joyride. Or whatever the correct analogy would be.)

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    19. Re:Now you too can be arrested for war-driving... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      What private property? I'm sitting in my car on a public road with a computer. Their WAP is broadcasting across public property.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  3. bittorrent by azatht · · Score: 1

    Can anyone deliver those files outside bittorrent, I am unable to use BT (studnet)

    --
    ------- In the end there are no begining
    1. Re:bittorrent by cbrocious · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'll send them to you, but only if you give me your studnet ID. I've been looking for studs all day.

      --
      Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
    2. Re:bittorrent by Thats_Pipe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yeah, It does suck for those college students who go to a tech school that KNOWS it has to limit ANY P2P bandwidth leaving the school. But of course, if you are going to a tech school, you should already have a linux box setup in someones apartment off-campus and be running the torrents from there.

      --
      "You see them trees out back, I take care of them. I'm a tree, I'm a tree wizard." - Crazy Homeless Guy
    3. Re:bittorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats the problem? just run it on another port and don't use so much bw, that the admin gets pissed.

    4. Re:bittorrent by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 1

      The school I am looking at for next year (Luther College) blocks all P2P traffic, as I found out this summer. They're not a tech school, and it's unfortunate because I was hoping I could maybe download a Linux distro or two that users torrents (Xandros). However, I guess there are still plenty that don't, so I shouldn't be too left out. And I would do it from home, but BB isn't available here.

      --
      R.Mo
  4. Better give this one to the wife... by L0phtpDK · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...god forbid if I get lost and have to ask for directions on this one: "Excuse me sir, can you please give me directions to the nearest 'default' access point?"

  5. Amazing by puiahappy · · Score: 1

    How fast technology advances

    --
    Think like a hacker, act like a hacker, but never become a hacker !
  6. Well.... by astebbin · · Score: 1

    There's already been the first arrest for wardriving, let's just hope these maps don't let to a second (or third, fourth, etc. with so many eager undergrads involved).

    1. Re:Well.... by ArticleI · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the arrest was not only because of wardriving, but because the wardriver cracked into a company's corperate computers and copied/attempted to copy credit card numbers.

  7. Not bad, but... by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd really like one of Redmond. Or, rather, this one specific part of Redmond...

    No reason, really. Honest.

    1. Re:Not bad, but... by mrballz · · Score: 1

      I'll drive that one tonight, I'm not doing anything.

  8. I wish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm also a student, but I can use BitTorrent, and let me tell you, that it's a damn slow torrent right now. As soon as it finishes (at 2.4 kB/s!) I'll try to put it on a real server so that it can be slashdotted to death :)

    1. Re:I wish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about? Fifteen seconds in, I'm sucking it down at 300 KB/s. Are you positive you're not throttled?

      FWIW, I like my school's bandwidth quota system: "Internet traffic from any computer exceeding the 400 Megabyte per hour limit will be temporarily diverted into a narrow Internet 'pipe' for an hour." Sensible and broadly applicable.

    2. Re:I wish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm absolutely positive that I'm not throttled. I use BitTorrent daily to download all sorts of "questionable" material, all at speeds greater than what this torrent seems to be giving me.

      I'm running the same configuration that I always do (unlimited uploads/downloads).

      Up until the point of writing this post, I didn't crack the 10 kB/s mark. Right now it's steady at ~ 185 kB/s so I can't really complain.

      I'd like to remind you (and our loyal viewers), that as with any other protocol, "your kilometerage may vary!"

    3. Re:I wish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be interesting to design a dynamic throttling gateway to keep you just under the limit, no matter what you are doing. You could pull a continuos 112KB/s without problem, but maybe it would be nice to have faster downloads if you aren't going to use the entire 400MB.

  9. Don't you mean.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Large-Format Slashdotable Wardriving maps of Seattle?

    1. Re:Don't you mean.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That's why the smartasses released them as .torrents only!

  10. Legality? by The+Grey+Clone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this legal? Are would it only be illegal if something like the Induce Act was passed? It seems to me that someone out there is going to think this is illegal and prosecute. Oh, and it's "generated."

    1. Re:Legality? by bluGill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If anyone needs it, I will witness under oath that my access point is open to everyone intentionally.

      As a christian I believe it is my duty to give away that which doesn't cost me. (and in some cases that which costs me, but that is a more complex area)

    2. Re:Legality? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to provide maps now? Holy shit, I'm glad I don't live in America. (NOTE: No identifiable information of the owners has been made available on this map. It isn't a "here's where all the abortion doctors live" map.)

    3. Re:Legality? by The+Grey+Clone · · Score: 1

      It is illegal to provide certain types of maps. Say, for example, I can't sell a map to a party that will be selling free beer. (At least according to an episode of Drew Carey).

    4. Re:Legality? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      I can't sell a map to a party that will be selling free beer.

      That isn't because of law but because of common sense.

  11. map of my home town by bird603568 · · Score: 5, Funny





    ..




    that's the map. Just my house and my neighbors. Maybe I need to wardrive Baltimore. If anybody has tell me

    1. Re:map of my home town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the technology gap between baltimore and seattle is crazy. i have a house in seattle but travel to baltimore very very often and am always in search of someplace with wifi. seattle, no prob, baltimore... no go.

  12. Better watch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're distributing information. Don't you know that's illegal now?

    1. Re:Better watch it by canuck57 · · Score: 1

      You're distributing information. Don't you know that's illegal now?

      Unless it is false information that benefits Microsoft. That is legal until SCO patents it.

    2. Re:Better watch it by SCVirus · · Score: 1

      SCO doesn't try to patent everything-- thats microsoft think sudo (SCO can't afford it). SCO just claims that you copied everything from them. THE LINE #INCLUDE IN THE LINUX KERNEL IS CLEARLY DIRECTLY COPIED FROM....

  13. the Wifi network thing is an ok idea, but... by n4ru70+f4n · · Score: 1

    publicly releasing maps of the WiFi area coverage in Seattle is a somewhat good idea in that the people know if they are covered by WiFi in that area, but it is also kinda dumb. Its just wasting space on the host and on the World Wide Web. I mean, seriously, overing arial maps of all of seattle is also a security risk...of course i probably would be arguing this point if the WiFi network was in Davie...

    1. Re:the Wifi network thing is an ok idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, thanks for running a df -h /TheInternet, I'll be sure to check with you before I upload stuff to my webhost later tonight.

      By the way, your ridiculous remark about aerial photos being a security risk needs to be backed up with logic and reasoning.

    2. Re:the Wifi network thing is an ok idea, but... by lionheart1327 · · Score: 1

      just wasting space on the host and on the World Wide Web

      I think you're waaaaay too late for that.

    3. Re:the Wifi network thing is an ok idea, but... by nsaneinside · · Score: 1
      I mean, seriously, overing arial maps of all of seattle is also a security risk...
      Wow, Microsoft must have more problems than we thought!
  14. Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a few have already pointed out, War Driving has some murky legal waters surrounding it. I hope that the people involved in the creation of this map don't suddenly wake up with the FBI bursting through their doors and a DOJ lawsuit involving intent to facilitate illegal activities/hacking/terrorism/etc. I really wouldn't put it past the DOJ in this day and age. Personally I think using someones wireless network without their authorization should be perfectly acceptable. These people should have properly configured their networks if they didn't want people using them. If they use the network access to own the hosts box, that's one story, but if you're just leeching their internet access it should certainly not be a crime. You're only partaking in activities that the host allowed through his security settings. If they didn't want to allow it, they should either fix their secuirty settings, or not set up a wireless access point when they obviously had no clue what they were doing. Ignorance of security should be no excuse. If you don't want people piggybacking your wireless connection, configure it properly, don't whine about it to the DOJ. You only have yourself to blame.

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    1. Re:Arrests by shadowmatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Joe Somebody goes into Best Buy, is told by the sales rep "just plug it in, it will self configure, and you'll be done," goes home, and does just that. It isn't in the sellers' interest to tell about all the precautions one should take, what to watch out for, because that doesn't make a good sales pitch. But "Ahh, it's so easy to set up, anyone could do it" does.

      So we can't even assume that Joe Somebody is aware that users outside his apartment, house, or network, can use his network. His neighbor's TV remote doesn't turn on his TV; his neighbor's garage door opener doesn't open his garage. Why should he assume that his neighbor's laptop can access/reach his wireless connection?

      Is it his responsibility to go home and Google for all the malicious things that can happen to your wireless connection? Do you sit at home and wonder "Gee, I wonder how my neighbors can use my toaster without me knowing and put me in a legal quagmire?"

      And it won't do any good to tell him to RTFM. Nobody does that anymore when it just seems to "work."

      Never underestimate the ignorance of Joe Somebody. Joe Somebody might just be a straight up newbie who has more important things to tend to. Joe Sombody today might work too many hours and has too many gadgets to proactively learn how all of them work, and the 'risks' associated with each. If you want every Joe Somebody to be aware, I'd put the onus on the sellers of the device, or the manufacturers (like, a big freaking sticker on the box might help).

      - shadowmatter

    2. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I can't adequately physically defend myself, is it my fault for being mugged? Of course not.

      You can claim that it's "victimless", but that's a load of horseshit. It puts additional load on a system which has finite resources. If the average PAID connection of an ISP increases the amount of load they put on the system, the costs of the ISP can increase. The ISP down the road has to recoup their costs, and who pays? Not the shitheads who hijack people's wirless connections. If the "negligent" wireless access point owner is paying on a bandwidth consumption basis, the cost to them is more direct.

      A lot of people need to get through their thick skulls that they aren't entitled to everyone else' resources.

    3. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doent mean that because my house door is unlocked that just about anybody can come in it.

    4. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ok, I can agree with you that maybe there should be a big sticker on the box with some warnings, but the fact that Joe Somebody has no time or interest in actually learning about the product he intends to buy doesn't pull any sympathy from me. The fact that he is actually listening, and TAKING the advice of a Best Buy sales rep proves that Joe Somebody's an idiot. The fact that Joe Somebody won't even read the manual just reiterates this point. I have exactly ZERO sympathy for people like this. They are simply lazy and feel that actually learning about whatever it may be will take too much of their precious time and effort. I'm not saying they need to understand the underlying protocols or anything like that, but you simply don't drive when you don't know the rules of the road.

      "Never underestimate the ignorance of Joe Somebody."

      I have certainly not underestimated the ignorance of Joe Sombody, in fact, I expect it. But these people who put exactly zero amount of effort into undrstanding what they are getting into simply deserve to get fucked. In this case, they deserve to have people taking advantage of their wireless network. I'll say it again. They DESERVE it. Ignorance is simply NOT an excuse, any I refuse to feel sorry for poor ol' Joe Somebody. With a little time and effort, he could have just as easily saved money on internet service and a wireless router by taking advantage of his neighbor's unsecured network, who once again due to his attitude of "I don't want to understand" would have DESERVED to be taken advantage of. Personal responsibility over your domain. It's a simple concept people.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    5. Re:Arrests by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      These people should have properly configured their networks if they didn't want people using them.

      So by your logic, if somebody leave's their car unlocked it's legal for me to steal it? After all they should of 'properly configured' the locks.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    6. Re:Arrests by Animaether · · Score: 1

      Okay, I see your statement saying that it should be perfectly okay to use an access point - the defense being that "they should have taken appropriate measures to prevent this" - has already garnered the usual "If I leave my house/car unlocked" etc. stuff. Obviously those aren't really good comparisons.

      So I'll postulate this... If I stand outside your house and switch your TV to a different channel for me to watch - would you mind that ?
      I'm not denying you of any service, you can easily flip it back to whatever you were watching. Just as an access point will send the data to whoever requested it and everybody else, so does a TV.
      If you didn't want me doing this, you should have closed your curtains.

      And if you say "yeah, but I can't watch my program without having to switch it back to it whenever you switch it to whatever the f* you're flipping to" - well, guess what ? If you use up half the bandwidth of my wireless router, I only get to use half as well.

    7. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      "So if I can't adequately physically defend myself, is it my fault for being mugged? Of course not."

      This comparison is rediculous. You can't simply check a few security settings on youself and be "secure" from a mugger. You can however do just that to secure your wireless network from outside users.

      "The ISP down the road has to recoup their costs, and who pays?"

      Gee I'd say this was pretty simple. First off, most broadband accounts are capped in terms of upstream and downstream to prevent this very problem your're describing. This in itself makes it a non-issue from the ISP standpoint. If they somehow DID incur unexpected costs related to a single account, I would expect the account holder to pay for it, no question. They have their network configured to allow unlimited outside access to their internet connection, so they should be the one to pay for the costs incurred through the use of that account. If they don't want to pay these extra costs, than they should SECURE THEIR FUCKING NETWORK.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    8. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I think using someones wireless network without their authorization should be perfectly acceptable

      You should *NEVER* use someone's access point without their permission.

      Except at night...

      to download porn..

      all night long!

    9. Re:Arrests by michaeldot · · Score: 1

      If you don't want people piggybacking your wireless connection, configure it properly, don't whine about it to the DOJ. You only have yourself to blame.

      If you don't want people ransacking your living room, install Chubb locks, bolt them securely every time you leave the house, don't whine about theft to the police.

      Okay, common sense really. Every knows to lock their doors these days. It's just that in days gone by (or perhaps in other communities or countries, eg, New Zealand), people could leave their doors unlocked and be completely unaffected.

      It seems that the complete loss of respect in society for other people's possessions has extended into the geek world too.

      I guess this is proof that many geeks are really no more than petty thieves who steal bandwidth instead of VCRs...

    10. Re:Arrests by lounger540 · · Score: 2

      There are signs all through out my campus reminding us, "Ignorance of campus policy is no excuse for breaking them". I believe then this should go the other way. Ignorance (or lack of caring to read a 10 page quickstart guide) that you're giving away free access shouldn't warrant sympathy from others.

      --
      LOOP1: MOV CX,2 LOOP LOOP1
    11. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      I really don't think this is a good comparison either. Flipping the television channel to seomthing else is not really the same as sharing bandwidth. It's more like if I was trying to browse the web and you somehow kept typing in a different URL than one that I wanted to goto. Additionally, there is not a mechanism built into to the TV to allow only your remote control to change its channels. Wireless routers have the ability to only allow traffic from your specific MAC, or explicity specified MACs. If this were built into television, and all remotes had unique ID's, then you could set it so only your remote could possibly change the channel, or your set of remotes. If that were the case, I would say that someone standing outside with their own remote, switching the channel and fucking with you would have all the legal right to do it. You have the capabilites to prevent this from happening. That doesn't mean that the person outside your window isn't an asshole, but he certainly shouldn't be arrested. Television service is simply fundamentally different than internet service, especially in the way you pose your scenario. In the case of wireless networks, you're actually broadcasting out to the immediate area over radio frequencies, that anyone with the proper equipment can pick up. In terms of television, you're not broadcasting anything to the world. You're receiving the broadcast. Someone watching in through your window is not taking away any resources from you. I guess they could get a splitter and hijack the signal from your cable box, but at that point, they're not really stealing from you, they're stealing from the Cable company.
      Anyway, I'm having trouble bring it all together here. My point isn't that wardriving is socially acceptable or unacceptable. I'm not saying you aren't a jerk if you abuse someones connection, or that you are. All I'm saying is that if you don't take the proper precautions to secure your wireless network, it should be fully within the law for someone else to take advantage of it. This issue can be completly sidelined if one would simply secure their network.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    12. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is more like a too big sidewalk, not a car !!

    13. Re:Arrests by The+Vulture · · Score: 1

      I actually liken it more to (and I suspect the point the person was trying to make was): If they don't bother to lock their car, then they shouldn't be surprised when somebody steals it. Just like, if they don't bother to lock their network, they shouldn't be surprised when somebody steals their bandwidth. Nothing about legality there, although in the same sentence...

      However, I do disagree with the poster when he states:
      but if you're just leeching their internet access it should certainly not be a crime

      Legally, theft of a motor vehicle (seeing as it's property) is a crime. Theft of cable services (for cable internet) is a federal crime, although I suspect that only the cable companies would get away with charing somebody - Joe Somebody likely couldn't. Even if Joe Somebody couldn't charge them criminally, certainly, there still is a theft of services going on here.

      I think that criminal prosecution in such a case would be very difficult, given that many broadband plans are mostly, "all you can eat" (with the exception of caps on some providers). However, in the case that somebody's network is compromised because they didn't lock it down, I'm all for favor of trying to recoup the losses (if measurable) through civil action. But, like in the case of your car getting stolen, if the insurance company finds that you left the doors unlocked, well, they start taking away from the claim that they'd give you. This should be no different.

      -- Joe

    14. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in response to parent, but to all the responses:

      How am I supposed to know that this access point identifying itself isn't free for me to use? After all, the ssid broadcast/no access restriction is in the standard for a reason different than ignorance/incompetence.

      From a personal standpoint, I believe in learning how to use the tools I need, be they chainsaws, cars or little plastic boxes sending out radiowaves for networks to piggyback on. The incompetence of the many is, and should be, their own problem. IOW: The problem at hand isn't mine, and it's unfair that it should become so.

      For those of you about to yell out that all these people have been fooled by some sales person: The United States is a democracy. Take responsibility and start a grass roots campaign to tighten up your false marketing legislation.

    15. Re:Arrests by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      but if you're just leeching their internet

      Emphasis added by me. It's theirs, not yours. You can't dictate 'oh well if they didn't want me on they would of said so' that's not your call to make.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    16. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      This is such a horrible analogy. In order to steal things from you, first I'd have to enter your house, without authorization. Perhaps, if the house were locked, I'd have to bypass your security. I already agree that bypassing someone's security in order to use their network shouldn't be legal. Next I would have to remove things from your house. I suppose this might be equated to taking up bandwidth. However, a few simple clicks is all it takes to kick someone off your network, secure it, and reclaim that lost bandwidth. You can't really do that with physical possessions. It's apples and oranges.
      Finally, there is a fundamental difference between acessing someones house without authorization and someones wireless network without authorization. The wireless network is being broadcast out into the world. An unlocked door is not broadcasting anything to anyone It's not saying "Hey I'm here to be used by anyone", while wireless access is. I don't have to enter your property or your household or force entry or anything. I can access to it from public space, the street under your apartment, or the park across the street. Or, I can even access it from my own private space, ie I live in the apartment next store. I should be able to take whatever radio signals that enter my personal space or domain, or what ever public space I happen to be in, and manipulate and use them accordingly. If you broadcast into my space, it should be fully within my rights to take advantage of whatever data or service is on those waves.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    17. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's facile and redundant. If I were you, I'd swallow a paperclip chain and take an MRI.

    18. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is their internet connection. However, they have made their available to the outside world for everyone to access. The fact that they did not dictate that they did not want outside users accessing their internet is not my problem. Why should I assume that they didn't want me on? That's not my call to make.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    19. Re:Arrests by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Because it's theirs, they shoudln't have to say "Dont Use It", that's common sense. If it's not yours, dont fuck with it.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    20. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're insufferably dense. If I were you, I'd sprint at a cop hollering and thrusting forth a replica shotgun.

    21. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, I don't have a fence or any "no tresspassing" signs on my property. So since I haven't explicitly made it known that I don't want you on my private property, why don't you just come on over and make yourself at home...see if you don't end up with a brain-full of lead.

      Moron.

    22. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What seems to be lost on you is that the ISP bandwidth allocation is based on expected usage by their customers. You'd be hard pressed to find any ISP that has bandwidth sufficient that all users could use even a significant part of their bandwidth at once. If assholes like you are adding to the load, then there is more usage than expected now isn't there. The cost of that increased load isn't borne by the assholes that think they're entitled to break into any network that isn't operated by a vigilant security expert.

      There is NO FUCKING WAY that anyone should be expected to pay, directly or indirectly, for you to use their bandwidth.

    23. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can only watch the show you were wanting to watch half the time because of someone on the sidewalk, how is that different from being able to use only half of the bandwidth your wireless access point is capable of because of someone out on the sidewalk? Either way, the person inside the house is only able to make use of half of what they have paid for.

      Any way about it though, permission to use someone else' equipment should be an opt-in, not an opt-out. If I don't grant permission to use my possessions, it isn't unreasonable for me to expect you not to use it.

    24. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      see if you don't end up with a brain-full of lead.

      See thats what I'm talking about. Personal responsibility. While I really don't consider the radio waves that carry signals to and from my pc to a wireless access point as "private property", if the person who set up the wireless network let it be known that anyone intruding on the network would end up with a "brain-full of lead" they would probably have a significant reduction of users piggybacking on their internet connection. Or they could simply secure the damn thing. I fully support your right to threaten people to get the fuck off your property. It is yours afterall. But at what line would you bust out the shotgun? Would you point it at some kids who were taking a shortcut to the park via your back yard? Or just some homeless guy who decided to take a nap under a tree in your yard? Where's the cutoff? Granted, you are legally entitled to do what ever you want. This is more of an Asshole cut off line I guess. But it is a HUGE stretch to compare physical property to the concept of a wireless internet connection. I'll take a shot though. Say you haver a fenced in backyard with a swimming pool. An unsecured wireless internet connection is more like leaving the fence open with a sign that says "swim at your leisure." If you don't want people in your fucking pool, you take the sign down and lock the gate. You don't leave things as they are and complain about it when people use it.

      Oh, and ending your post with "Moron" makes you look real fucking intelligent...

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    25. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more like leaving the gate open. Period. No sign saying help yourself. That's the point. There's been no permission given for you to use their shit.

    26. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      The fact that the network assigns me a IP address and starts routing packets to my network interface IS the sign.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    27. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You took action to get those things. Unless the ssid of the access point is "freewireless" or somesuch, there's nothing that access point is doing that's giving you permission to use it.

      If I break onto a private golf course and start playing on hole 3, the course staff may offer me a drink when we cross paths on hole 6. That doesn't make it right for me to be there in the first place.

      You're obviously a different sort of person than I am. I don't assume that every piece of private property out there is mine to use unless the owner specifically tells me otherwise. I think it has something to do with common decency.

    28. Re:Arrests by Animaether · · Score: 1

      I'll defend my comparison.
      You raise a few interesting points, which I will address. Note that where I say 'you' I mean a hypothetical 'you', being either TV-flipping victim or wardriver where applicable.

      Point: There isn't a mechanism build into the TV to allow only your remote control to change its channels.
      Reply: In a way, they do. Your TV responds only to signals from remotes from the same manufacturer - and even they produce ones with different signal codes. Otherwise it would be difficult to have two TVs, for example. The fact that one can buy a generic remote doesn't change this part. Similarly, with WEP etc. the protection is equally minimal. Given a proper tool, you can still use the wifi connection.

      Point: It's more like typing in a different URL every time.
      Answer: And in a way, you do. For however minor a fraction of time, whatever page was loading doesn't load because the access point/router/etc. has to deal with sending -you- signals instead. Put differently, what would be the difference between the TV flipping channels and you missing bits and pieces of the show, and me watching a streaming video and missing bits and pieces of the video ? You may postulate that the odds are that I'm just downloading a webpage, and it'll come in whole (albeit a bit slower). However, you don't know this for a fact.

      Point: Television doesn't broadcast out
      Answer: It very well does. If you have the TV on in your living room, and I'm walking by on the sidewalk, I can look at your TV (provided there's a window, no curtains are closed, etc.). Often this is a wardriving excuse for picking up signals to get the ssid/break WEP.

      Point: They shouldn't be arrested
      Answer: This depends. Window peeping - which is what watching your TV would be, not even talking about changing the channel - can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor; under Disorderly Conduct. The reason for this is that people feel threatened or harassed if some 'jerk', as you say, peers into their window - even though they can very well just close the curtains. Similarly, who is to say that I don't feel threatened if my bandwidth suddenly drops, and I know it to be because somebody is accessing through my wireless access point ? After all, it could be a hacker(!). And yes, I could put up a firewall - but again, you could close the curtains.

      Point: Simply secure their network
      Answer: People have been doing this. For one, by disabling SSID broadcast. What happened ? Somebody wrote a tool to pick up the signals and get at the SSID anyway. Then WEP... somebody wrote a tool to crack that. WPA... already in the process of being cracked. WPA2, 802.11h, etc. Just how much is an end-user supposed to protect their wifi before their precautions are deemed 'proper' ? For insurers, a relatively simple lock will do - you don't need a giant vault door as your front/back doors. Similarly, at what point do *you* feel a wardriver has crossed the line of acceptable actions?

      Personally I'm of the opinion that a 'wardriver' (why that term anyway? weird.) is free to access an open access point (broadcasts SSID, has no WEP/WPA/etc.) if and ONLY if they have ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt that it is indeed free to use.
      I.e. if they find a Starbucks one, go into the Starbucks, and if it says "Free for all!", go for it. If it says "Free for patrons" - tough, unless you buy a coffee and sit down there.

    29. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      Ok, with a single television, you are pretty much limited to watching the stream from 1 channel at one time. With internet, you can get several streams from multiple sources at once. So, when someone else flips the channel of the television, the entire use of that television is redirected to the new channel. When someone uses your wireless network to access the internet, yes a resource does become unavailable to you, no doubt. However, the entire use of that resource is not suddenly redirected to the new users requests. This is a huge difference between the two. In one case of television, your watching something, someone changes the channel, and you no longer have access to what you were previsouly watching. With wireless internet, you're shoutcast stream will likely continue to play, you can still browse the web, etc. You haven't lost complete control over the resource. Furthermore, most people aren't even using 100% of all the bandwidth available to them. So, yes you have lost SOME control, but not all. Yes, it is possible for someone to hog so much bandwidth that your experience slows to an unusable crawl, but I'm simply illustrating that yes, there is a difference. That's not any kind of justification for using their bandwidth. That's simply the difference between the two.

      I think that the justification for using someone's wireless connection is simply necessity. I have a wireless enabled device. You are providing wireless access. It is common sense to put 2+2 together and use the resource that was made available to you by the owner. Once again, I have to reiterate that the owner MADE this available to you. You didn't break security, you didn't threaten them or coerce them to do this. By their own free will, they have set up their wireless network to allow connections fom the outside world. If they didn't want the outside world connecting to their network they obviously would have set it up in that way. Some people seem to feel that this is not OK, as some people are ignorant in the ways to properly set up a device they own. First, I have to say tough shit to those igorant people. They should understand how to work the things they own. Thier ignorance is not my problem. Second of all, there seems to be lots of support in legislating this, and making it a crime. I wish I could round the people up that support this and kick them the fuck out of this country. Legislation will NOT fix the underlying problem. The problem is the ignorance of people who willingly configure their device to allow outside connections without wanting that functionality. The answer to the problem is Education. Legislating this will simply ensure that the masses continue to remain ignorant, and not educated themselves, as Big Brother has their back. So as a result, we end up with more laws on the books, more peopl in jail, and society that remains ignorant. How can this be a desireable result?

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    30. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      "there's nothing that access point is doing that's giving you permission to use it."

      What can you possibly mean? The access point is doing the fundamental thing that indicates I have permission to use it. It's giving me access! If the access point wasn't doing anything that gave me permission to use it, then I wouldn't be able to use it. That is how the thing implicitly works.

      Your golf course analogy flat out fails. You say "If I break onto a private golf course." Requesting and being given an IP from an access point isn't anything close to breaking into a place. Thats like breaking securty to have the wireless access, something I said I don't agress with. Using an open wireless access point is more like going to the pro shop and asking "Can I have a tee time?" and the pro replying "Yes" and assigning one to you. You didn't sneak in, they let you in.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    31. Re:Arrests by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      So if I can't adequately physically defend myself, is it my fault for being mugged? Of course not.

      It's more a case of someone asking for your watch and you saying sure and giving it to them.

    32. Re:Arrests by really? · · Score: 1
      Additionally, there is not a mechanism built into to the TV to allow only your remote control to change its channels.

      Err ... curtains???

      :-)

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    33. Re:Arrests by really? · · Score: 1

      By your logic...

      Because:
      1. Most cars have more than one seat.
      2. Most cars are occupied by only one person.
      3. Most people drive with their car doors unlocked.

      Then: When a car stops next to me, I can get in and get a ride to wherever the next place that the car stops next. I bathe everyday, and I am not to big, and those back seats are empty anyway. Hell, I'll be quick to get in and out and won't even say a word to the driver, so her driving experience should be the same as if I were not there. No?

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    34. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll try to address your rebuttals with a few of my own. Well first my opinion is that a wardriver should be free to access any open access point which allows them to do so without employing additional tools to break encryption, or 'side-step' the normal handshaking rules. This includes spoofing MACs, etc. Any special "tricks" required to get access is a good indication that you shouldn't use the AP. Breaking security is a comepletly different issue that I'm not supporting. On the the points

      1) TV's do NOT only respond to a remote from a single manufacturer. If this were the case, the concept of the universal remote would simply not work. I don't know how many times as a younger kid I used a IR wristwatch to take control of a friends or schools television. In a system such as ethernet which uses MAC, each device on the network has a truly unique ID number which can be used to specify valid devices which gain access (yes it can be spoofed, but I already said that was off limits in terms of what I think is appropriate) Remote controls do not have this level of uniqueness. You can simply program your universal remote with the correct code for the model of television and off you go changing channels. Many remotes have a feature that allows you to autodetect which code is appropriate for controlling the television it is pointed at. While I see what you are getting at, these are hardly at all the same mechanisms.

      2)You are not going to miss bits and pieces of a video because of your router. Your router can route packets way faster then can be recieved over the incoming transmission line. Additionally, most people with broadband simply do NOT usually max out the speeds. Usually, especially when downstreaming large media, there is some sort of bottleneck on the other end of the line. Your aren't likely going to miss any of the broadcast due to someone on your wireless connection. Maybe if they were running Kazaa or something, but at that point I'd agree that they were an asshole, but certainly still not a criminal.

      3)This is simply a matter of what we define as being "broadcast." I consider the signal from CBS to my television a broadcast, or the signal from my access point to my network interface a broadcast. I don't really consider the images from the television traveling over the electromagnetic spectrum until it hits my eyes a "broadcast" in any more sense that I consider the image of a flower in a garden reaching my eyes when I look at it a "broadcast" of the flower.

      4)Here you've changed the issue. Now you're saying window peeping is illegal. Fine, but that has nothing to do with getting assigned an IP from an access point. You're getting away from the point. What do you mean you *COULD* put up a firewall? If you aren't already running behind one, and you additionally are allowing open access to your wireless network, you're a bigger moron than I thought. Additionally, if you KNOW that it is someone accessing through your wireless access point, than you should KNOW better than to allow open acces to it. Refusing to do anything about it just makes you seem lazy.

      5)In this last point you start talking about people getting around security measures. Well this is where I draw the line. As I said before, I don't agree with taking any measures that circumvent someone's security policy. Proper end-user behavior involves simply configuring the access point to not allow any connectivity that comes outside trusted sources through basic secuirty configurations that are included with the device. Getting around these protections is ALREADY illegal for unauthorized users. That is what the current security protocols and laws are for. We don't need more laws and legislation to protect people too stupid to use the mechanisms already in place. However, when people configure their wireless access points to allow access, what else should you expect other than they either want to let people use their access point, or that they are a big moron. I'm thankful to those who fall in the former catego

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    35. Re:Arrests by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      Your logic is awful. Let me try:

      Because:
      1. Most cars have more than one seat.
      2. Most cars are occupied by only one person.
      3. Most people drive with their car doors unlocked.

      Then: When a car stops next to me, I can ask the driver if they would give me a lift to wherever they happen to be going. The driver is free to say yes or no, and continue on their journy accordingly. Actually, the point if the doors are locked or unlocked is irrelavent, because you ask permission from the driver.

      In terms of a wireless access point, I'm free to ask it "Can I have an IP?" It is free to respond "yes" and give me one, granting me access to the network, or "no" and not give me one, denying me access. In this case though, negligent owners of access points have determined that they should always reply "Yes" to this question, giving me permission to use their wireless signal. That's their own fault and nobody elses. So don't go blaming anyone else when someone decides to hop on their network.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    36. Re:Arrests by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      than they should SECURE THEIR FUCKING NETWORK. Ooooh, uppercase and the F word. You're sooo cool. Maybe if WPA actually worked, they would.

    37. Re:Arrests by elgaard · · Score: 1

      Or Joe Somebody might just connect to his neighbours access point believing he is using his own.

    38. Re:Arrests by elgaard · · Score: 1

      That is easyer said than done.

      E.g. my PDA is set to connect to wireless networks. I open it in the bus to check the calendar. It automatically connects to an open access point. A daemon such as ntpd or mta is starts and use the internet. Did I abuse it?

      Or I go to a cafe, buy a cup of coffee, starts my laptop. The sign on the door says they have free wireless internet. Hmm, I see access points named NETGEAR, default, linksys, default, abcde, and WIRELESS. The girl at the counter does not know anything about the network. What do I do?

    39. Re:Arrests by sedmonds · · Score: 1

      And your logic is any better? It's based entirely on "I want to use something that isn't mine, and it's their fault I can." That's what it boils down to.

      You aren't asking the owner. No amount of claiming you are will make it different. You're asking an inanimate object for consent to use something that isn't yours. If you have a remote control that unlocks the doors to your car, and it happens to unlock someone else's car are you saying you're free to go sit in their car for a while, and justified in doing so? They didn't secure their car door, afterall.

      Let me say it again, you are not asking the owner for consent to use their wireless access point, their network, the electricity required to power each. You aren't compensating them for any of these things.

      If someone has a garden hose run out to the sidewalk with a triggered nozzle and the water is turned on at the house, are you claiming it's alright for you to pick it up and wash your car?

      You: "Hi, hose, may I use you?"
      Hose: *gurgle* *sputter* *gurgle*
      You: "Thanks!"

      They didn't bolt it to the ground, afterall.

    40. Re:Arrests by sedmonds · · Score: 1
      2)You are not going to miss bits and pieces of a video because of your router. Your router can route packets way faster then can be recieved over the incoming transmission line. Additionally, most people with broadband simply do NOT usually max out the speeds. Usually, especially when downstreaming large media, there is some sort of bottleneck on the other end of the line. Your aren't likely going to miss any of the broadcast due to someone on your wireless connection. Maybe if they were running Kazaa or something, but at that point I'd agree that they were an asshole, but certainly still not a criminal.


      And while wardriving you know who is going to notice changes in usable network bandwidth? How do you know that particular person isn't copying large amounts of data from a laptop to a pc on their network, which can easily saturate a connection. Point being, you may be affecting their resources in a perceptible way.

      I'm (...), and have no qualms taking advantage of an idiot.


      That right there says it all. You want something from someone who may not know how to protect himself from assholes. And it's their fault for it, apparently.
    41. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The golf course is giving me access if there's a gap in the fence, or in the case of many golf courses there is no fence to begin with. How else would I get access?

      I use "break in" as the term, because to me that's what it is. I'd use the same terms for you using my access point without my consent. Either way I'm making use of something that isn't mine.

      You've said repeatedly in various posts that the access point is giving you permission. Asking for an IP from an access point amounts to turning the front door handle on a house. If the door opens, the owner must want you in! It gave you access!

      Entering someone's unlocked house with the intention of using their resources without permission is prosecutable as break and enter (unsecured wireless point). Same as if you threw a brick through a window (spoofed MAC, hacked router, whatever).

    42. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, where's that ''poster is an asshole (-1)'' mod when we need it? Go take your elitist ass and jump out of a window already.

    43. Re:Arrests by really? · · Score: 1

      You can try to twist this any way you want, but you are NOT asking the owner for permission to acess his or her network, and that's the important point.

      (Just so you know, where _I_ stand: I use my neighbours' unsecuread APs all the time. I am on a very narrow "broadband" pipe, and my neighbours are on MUCH wider ones. So, at night I let one of my boxes lose and get whatever I need. Although I do this without their permission, I really don't know who the kind bandwidth donnors are, I am in no way kidding myself that this is not morally, and perhaps legally, wrong.)

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    44. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point here is that there are public hotspots which are otherwise indistinguishable from your access point to a machine. There are numerous standard compliant devices which will connect to every open access point they come across (because asking the user every time is impractical, think wireless phones). The standard defines access controls to enable these devices to tell public hotspots and private access points apart. It is not the wardrivers' fault that manufacturers configure all access points as public hotspots by default and users don't care enough to correct this.

      You're trying to break a standard by throwing legal sticks into the spokes, thereby destroying the system for people who legitimately use Wifi on the road, just so you don't have to go through a handful of configuration screens. BTW, there are access points with easy pairing features. Just push a button on both devices and they set up encryption automatically.

    45. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there were public cars that work just like that, yes, I would expect to be allowed to get into an open car and drive away with it, even if it's just your car which you have no intention to share but happen to leave unlocked and with the keys in the ignition.

      The standard is designed so that inanimate objects under my control can communicate with other inanimate objects under other people's control. If we both leave our Wifi devices in the most convenient configuration, they will connect. Is that my fault or yours?

    46. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You can try to twist this any way you want, but you are NOT asking the owner for permission to acess his or her network, and that's the important point.

      I consider a DHCP request to be asking, but I agree with you about what the law currently thinks. Funny thing, when I talk to normal people about this they can't believe it could be illegal to use an open access point. Since Windows XP connects automatically (by default) to any open access point it's hard to understand why it is considered a crime. I think it's time to change the law.

    47. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 802.11 standard doesn't supercede common decency. Nor does purchasing a device which connects to anything and everything that isn't yours absolve you of responsibility for how YOUR device functions.

      Unless you've been given permission to use something that belongs to someone else, common decency dictates that you won't use it. You're confusing it being possible for anyone to use the access point with anyone having permission to use the access point.

      About the wireless phones. Again, just because you can do something doesn't make it right for you to do it. I could drive around the neighborhood until my phone worked. Does that mean I can drive down to the house it worked to make all my phone calls?

      At the end of it, it IS the wardrivers fault. You are actively seeking out access points which are NOT yours. Your claim that destroying it for people who "legitimately use Wifi on the road, jsut so you don' thave to go through a handful of configuration screens." applies both ways. You're just blindly connecting to any open point just so you can avoid asking permission.

    48. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you buy an access point that will connect to anything and everything that isn't yours, there is nothing in common decency which says it somehow becomes my fault when they actually connect. If you don't want your access point to talk to my laptop, DON'T LET IT. As you already stated correctly, it applies both ways. Hey officer, look, this here access point talks to my laptop even though its owner did not ask for permission.

      The standard defines ways of asking permission. In fact they are part of every connection setup. I am not connecting blindly. I am connecting to an access point which ACTIVELY performs the handshake even though it is quite capable of rejecting my connection attempt.

      Asking permission in person is out of the question because it would make many legitimate uses of Wifi technology impractical, and it isn't necessary because there is a working and simple way of negotiating the permission automatically.

    49. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like asking people to pay extra if they want to recharge their laptop in a diner. Most users of public access points use perhaps a couple megabytes. That kind of bandwidth costs the ISP diddly-squat. Besides, if you don't want others to use your access point, nobody's forcing you to let them: just enable WEP and keep them out that way.

      You're asking others to play nice, but at the same time you're placing mines for innocuous Wifi users to stumble upon. Do your part by not pretending to be a public hotspot if that's not your intention.

    50. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you figure that common decency doesn't dictate that you shouldn't make use of things that you know very well don't belong to you? Either way, the access point does NOT initiate a request to use the service. It advertises that there is a service. It doesn't say which people have permission to use the service. A sign on a private fence that says "Swimming pool" does not give you permission to go take a swim.

      My personal view is that passively broadcasting over public frequency bands (such as SSID broadcasts, from some guy with a laptop or from a wireless access point connected to some other network, or whatever) is fundamentally different from actively broadcasting with the intention of using a service. One is intentionally utilizing specific resources, one is not.

      The standards for a door defines ways of asking permission to enter. In fact, they are part of every door setup. And yet when you reach out and open someone else' door, you're suggesting that it's the door owners fault that you were able to enter and make use of their resources?

      If you are intentionally connecting to a service without knowing whether the owner has specifically given you permission, I just don't see how you're suggesting that permission is implied. Like has been said elsewhere, you want something that isn't yours, and whether or not you've been permission to use it you think you're entitled.

      When faced with encountering a privately owned resource that I want to use, the first question I ask myself is whether or not I have permission to use it. I assume that I do NOT have permission, unless someone with authority to act on the owners behalf has intentionally granted me permission. Not whether the owner might have inadvertently made it available.

      A running car isn't an invitation for me to hop in and take it for a drive. An unlocked door isn't an invitation for me to come in, nor is an open door. Not because it might be inconvenient to ask for permission, but because doing these things is just not right. Nor is using someone else' internet connection without their permission.

    51. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The permission to talk to either device is implied by the actions of these devices: the AP broadcasts, the computer reacts with a connection attempt: The first packet is sent by your access point. Your access point broadcasting its SSID and answering my computer's connection attempt is as much or as little an active choice as my computer's reaction to your access point's broadcasts. They're both default configurations. If you think that there is no implicit permission to talk to your AP, then you consequently should not assume that I gave your access point permission to talk to my computer either. You are under the same obligation to change the configuration to prevent this connection without consent. If either one of us changes the configuration, the problem is solved, and there's a bunch of good reasons to change the configuration of the access point instead of the clients. Here's the social reason:

      The main point is that we're talking about machines making decisions for us. Most of the time I have no problem telling a door which I am not supposed to open from a door to a public space without checking whether it's locked. A computer is a lot dumber and cannot tell an intentional public hotspot from an access point that is just in an open default configuration. This is where your responsibility starts: A number of perfectly legitimate uses of Wifi technology rely on computers being able to automatically decide if a connection is acceptable and the standard includes ways of giving computers this ability by putting the relevant information into the configuration of the access point. Not breaking these applications is easy and I think the negligence which you defend so vigorously is utterly deplorable considering that you're using a public resource: the 2.4GHz ISM band in a public space. This is not your private bandwidth. Act responsibly and tell others in a machine readable way that you don't want them to use your access point.

      Don't think that's ok? Well, then I hereby declare that I don't want your access point to talk to my computer and a connection attempt by my computer must not be misinterpreted as an invitation to change the IP configuration of my computer by a DHCP reply. I simply like the ease with which my computer accesses public hotspots and therefore have not configured it to require manual connection initiation (Alternatively: I was not aware that my computer would attempt to use private networks. It was advertised that it would use public WLANs.) Again, this must not be interpreted as permission to talk to my computer (with the exception of public hotspots).

    52. Re:Arrests by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you use up half the bandwidth of my wireless router, I only get to use half as well.

      If you only ever use 1/4 of your bandwidth, and someone else uses 1/2 without your permission or knowledge (excepting cases of metered usage), how does this affect you?

    53. Re:Arrests by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And your logic is any better? It's based entirely on "I want to use something that isn't mine, and it's their fault I can." That's what it boils down to.

      Yes, that is what it boils down to. If my neighbor stored his lawn mower on my lawn, would you think it theft for me to use it every once in a while to mow my yard? After all, if he didn't want me to use it, he wouldn't leave it in my yard with the keys in it.

      How about if I found a newspaper on my front porch every day, but I didn't order a paper? Should I throw them away without reading them? Should I ask my neighbors if they bought a paper and put down the wrong address? Or, would it be legal to just read the papers delivered to me?

      So, what should I do when someone bombards me with 802.11 packets? They are actively advertising their network. They are offering up IPs to anyone that asks. They are routing trafic to anyone that wants. I can sit in my living room and connect through someone else's access point.

      Let me say it again, you are not asking the owner for consent to use their wireless access point, their network, the electricity required to power each. You aren't compensating them for any of these things.

      Could you please tell me what the cost of electricity is increased by when I use and otherwise idle AP? They have it powered on and, in most cases, sitting idle. If they were interested in saving electricity, they'd turn it off. Considering that most home networking equipment doesn't even have an "off" button, it will remain on when not in use. So, me using it when they are not on will increase their cost by how much?

    54. Re:Arrests by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      Maybe if WPA actually worked, they would.

      WPA works well[1], when switched on.

      [1] For suitably small values of "well"; it's usually enough to keep the casual wardrivers out, and if nothing else it is a statement that the network is not intended to be open.

    55. Re:Arrests by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I don't consider failing to pass packets working well.

    56. Re:Arrests by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

      Failing to pass packets? I didn't hear about this failure mode yet. Is it a design fault, or just a device-specific implementation bug?

    57. Re:Arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't just incurring power consumption on the access point. When you're using their device, you are incurring power consumption in potentially many devices.

      Either way, you think you're entitled to their resources. I think that makes you an inconsiderate asshole.

  15. We need a self-localizing map application. by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rather that use dead-trees, wardrivers could use the names and signal strengths to nearby stations to estimate their position and calculate movements toward the best accessible WiFi hotspots. Even if the base station is password protected, its broadcast name and existence can help war drivers figure out where they are on the war-driving map. And if each wardriver submits data on stations and signal strengths, statistical combination of all the data could help refine the map further.

    It will never beat GPS, but it would be cool to create a city-wide navigation system that works on WiFi -- "just turn left when you get max signal from MAC 00 60 1D 1C B9 0D."

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:We need a self-localizing map application. by stephenisu · · Score: 1

      Due to the effects caused by line of sight, signal strength can vary greatly by moving a few feet one way, than go back if you continue in the same direction. You would need a 3d spacial wifi map of the city for that to work if I am not mistaken.

      although, it's not uncommon for me to be mistaken.

      --
      Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
    2. Re:We need a self-localizing map application. by GrAfFiT · · Score: 2, Informative

      The issue is that the strenght of the signal is not a linear function of distance. Just think about a signal passing through 3 concrete walls and direct sight antenna on the roof of a distant tower. They may have comparable strength but not the same distance. You can use a clock to measure the travel time but that would be recreating something even more complex than GPS.

    3. Re:We need a self-localizing map application. by chaffed · · Score: 1

      And it was said. God responded unto G4from128k.

      Wigle just a little bit

      --
      What could possibly go wrong?
  16. Re:Interesting... by blue+trane · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you're ever in Seattle good sir, i counsel you to avoid raquel the crackwhore.

  17. What I want to see by Ravenscall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is how many of these are left in a week once people realize thier networks are being tapped.

    --
    You say you want a revolution....
    1. Re:What I want to see by j1bb3rj4bb3r · · Score: 1

      Is how many of these are left in a week once people realize thier networks are being tapped.

      well... the people who have wide open wireless networks probably aren't going to be up on wardriving or the existence of this map unless it happens to get on the 11 o'clock news for some reason.

      --
      *yawn*
    2. Re:What I want to see by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      You do have a good point, but things like this DO have a habit of making it on the evening news. Usually under the tagline "Millions of terrorist hackers are swarming the greater Seattle area to steal YOUR broadband"

      It is all about the culture of fear.

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
  18. In other news... by game+kid · · Score: 2, Funny

    The FBI does a sweeping investigation of the Redmond, WA area after Bill Gates found adult videos and yachts were being billed on his credit cards without his knowledge.

    FBI director Robert Mueller refused to comment on whether Internet hackers stole his numbers from a Microsoft Word Document he stored on his laptop, only adding "If the crooks like porn, it's not our business."

    More news at 11.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  19. Strange Request by solowCX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone have a NON-bittorrent download location? University of Washington screws over its students by decreasing bittorrent speed to near zero.

    1. Re:Strange Request by bird603568 · · Score: 1

      soon as i get the file ill mirror it. i hope i dont get slashdotted

    2. Re:Strange Request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, Run it on non-deafult port and it works fine and fast.

    3. Re:Strange Request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OKAY, OKAY, I ADMIT IT!
      I'm just too lazy to set up bittorrent on my box.
      Now will you post that to www PLEEEEEZ?

    4. Re:Strange Request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOTCHA! ;)

    5. Re:Strange Request by bird603568 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ok i have it mirrored http://bird603568.ath.cx/

    6. Re:Strange Request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you host a scaled jpg of the whole map, and a 1:1 cropped jpg of some interesting portion, so that we know what the image looks like before downloading 366 MB?

    7. Re:Strange Request by bird603568 · · Score: 1

      ok its up. can somebody mod up the mirror?

    8. Re:Strange Request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice going on the three megabyte "thumbnail" png, asshat. Haven't you ever heard of JPEG?

    9. Re:Strange Request by thogard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since thats nearly dead....
      http://slashmirror.abnormal.com/

  20. 366 MB?! by abhinavnath · · Score: 4, Funny

    366 MB?! Do you realize how long it'll take me to download that through someone else's access point?

    --
    My other sig is also a .Porsche
    1. Re:366 MB?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have any clues on the dimensions of the image? at 366mb that's quite a bit

    2. Re:366 MB?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      366 MB?! Do you realize how long it'll take me to download that through someone else's access point?

      About 20min using any number of them on 2nd and Bell near where the Speakeasy café was.

    3. Re:366 MB?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Come on -- I download many, many GIG's worth every month from access points (other than mine :). Living in a dense population sure helps sometimes -- particularly when there's so many dumb users out there broadcasting their SSID and have no encryption turned on. I've got a old laptop (running Linux of course) just sitting there 24x7 sucking data on their dime.

    4. Re:366 MB?! by whm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obvious solution - you need a better access point! There's a great map of them online, just downlo...er heh.

  21. Bittorrent? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

    I think there's a big problem if I'm only pulling in a single digit KBps rate on one of the files, and the other's not comming through at all. If it is possible to slashdot a torrent then something is wrong.

    1. Re:Bittorrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not. Most people have more downstream bandwidth than upstream; if a bunch of such people suddenly start downloading a torrent, transfer rates will fall dramatically.

      Bittorrent isn't magic.

    2. Re:Bittorrent? by James_G · · Score: 1
      Check your firewall settings. You'll get much better rates if you allow ports 6881:6889 through to your machine.

      For what it's worth, I've finished downloading both torrents and I'm now seeding them at a total of about 20Mbit/s right now (1.3MB/s on one, 700KB/s on the other).. so there's definitely nothing wrong with the torrent.

    3. Re:Bittorrent? by emcron · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong. Finished the download in about 10 minutes and the total peer transfer is pushing 10mbits/sec at the moment and sure to increase.

    4. Re:Bittorrent? by br00tus · · Score: 1

      Are you behind a firewall?

      Do you have several pieces available for trade yet?

      Are you uploading at a double-digit speed?

      I'm currently downloading at 20.7K/s with Azureus.

      As far as can a swarm be slashdotted or not, I've seen discussions of that topic, but with only 70 peers visible in the swarm right now, we are nowhere near the level of that happening.

    5. Re:Bittorrent? by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      It could be a case of too few seeds, and too many incompletes. BitTorrent starts to see some issues when the queries are hammering a very few seeds hard - they seem to spend so much time saying "sorry, busy" that they hardly can get the data out.

  22. What's special about wifi? by BrianUofR · · Score: 1

    Why is this map any more controversial than any other network map?

    1. Re:What's special about wifi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said it was contreversial ? Who said we can't use Google too ?

  23. For the love of god..... by Espen · · Score: 1, Informative

    ....get with the proper scalable paper sizes. Any geek would revel in the rationality of the ISO A-type paper sizes

  24. Now everyone complaining a the speed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and when you finish downloading the torrents, you'll find it's a 10000x10000 goatse.cx pic...

    1. Re:Now everyone complaining a the speed... by sxtxixtxcxh · · Score: 0, Troll

      karmawhore link .... :p

      --
      for a minute there, i lost myself...
  25. Version 2.0 by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

    Nice job!

    Small problem. My buddy in Seattle just shut off his WiFi router. Now the map is out of date.

    For the next version, why not release this with a program that wardrivers can use to automatically detect and upload changes to the server? The open source/wiki development model seems to be even better suited to this than to, say, an OS or encyclopedia.

    --
    In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    1. Re:Version 2.0 by LinuxHam · · Score: 1

      For the next version, why not release this with a program that wardrivers can use to automatically detect and upload changes to the server?

      That's something I'll be installing when I finish my "carputer". I hacked my nav system to be a tv and take 3 input sets. I'm spec'ing a carputer for one of the input sets, and will be running gpsdrive among other things on it. GPS Drive integrates directly with Kismet and updates maps live with hit data. I prefer wigle.net myself, and built one of the wiki pages. Now whenever I get a new assignment, I usually map the surrounding area to "flesh out" the wigle data.

      I'd like to get to a point whereby every time I get in the car, the carputer is constantly mapping and uploads the deltas each time I pull into my driveway.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
  26. Vector my ass. by Fussen · · Score: 1

    Since when was a PNG vector???

    1. Re:Vector my ass. by nsaneinside · · Score: 1

      I don't think I will vector your ass, thankyouverymuch.

  27. IM MIRRORING by bird603568 · · Score: 1

    heres a mirror, IM mirroring if for people that cant use BT because i cant handle a huge amount of traffic. http://bird603568.ath.cx/

    1. Re:IM MIRRORING by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should think about moving to a non-.cx domain. Every time I think of Christmas Island, I get flashbacks...

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    2. Re:IM MIRRORING by bird603568 · · Score: 1

      im sorry. theres nothing i can do about it now people are already downloading from me.

    3. Re:IM MIRRORING by Ryan+Stortz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lol....post traumatic stress! In ten years there will be a goatse-survivors support group.

      --
      Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
  28. Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a good use for airpwn.

    http://www.evilscheme.org/defcon

  29. Netstumbler?? by CyberDave · · Score: 1

    I was reading over their project info, because my Information Warfare class last quarter did something similar for Spokane, WA, but didn't actually plot out any maps (we were mostly looking for corporate vs. personal networks, secured vs. non-secured, % in default configuration, etc).

    Anyway, I'm surprised that they used NetStumbler on Windows XP for their network detection. Our class used Kismet on Linux.

    Netstumbler is a completely active tool. As I recall, sends out association packets and listens for APs that respond (or something along those lines).

    Kismet on the other hand is complete passive...it puts the wireless interface into RFmon mode (as opposed to promiscuous mode) and simply records all 802.11 frames that come across the air, allowing you to, among other things, sniff arbitrary packet and detect networks that are not broadcasting beacon frames.

    I did a simple wardrive a few months ago: Kismet on my laptop, Netstumbler on my friend's laptop. Kismet found around 3x or 4x as many networks. So I'm surprised that UW used NetStumbler and not Kismet...

    That said, I'm still downloading their maps on my Azureus box right now. I might recommend to my CyberSecurity prof that he should get a group of grad students in one of his classes to do something similar for our area.

    1. Re:Netstumbler?? by CyberDave · · Score: 1

      Replying to my own post...

      Of course, the UW project was for a Communications Class. Our Information Warfare class was, of course, a Computer Science class.

      Even with the customized Knoppix CD I built for the wardrive, we still had problems with getting the wardrive equipment working properly. NetStumbler in a Windows environment is, of course, going to much more familiar to Communications students than Kismet (a CLI tool) on Linux.

      Still a neat project. I'd like to know a bit more about how they stitched the data together and where they got their source maps.

      Not to mention that wardriving with GPS will not give you the exact location of an AP, just a radius of where it might be based on the signal strength (for each data point). The more packets you receive, and especially if you do a grid-wise traversal over the target area, you can start to define a smaller and smaller area for the AP. But you'll never identify it exactly short of physically sighting it or its antenna.

    2. Re:Netstumbler?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did something similar for Spokane, WA, but didn't actually plot out any maps

      Until you realized that you're in the wilderness in Spokane and a) there's no WiFi access points, and b) there's no place to buy printer paper?

    3. Re:Netstumbler?? by CyberDave · · Score: 1

      As a point of reference, our class wardrive found 1656 infrastructure networks (according to Kismet), and we didn't even cover a quarter of the city.

      Not to mention that Spokane was a downtown-wide hotzone?

      Don't forget that Spokane was just ranked in the top ten Intelligent Communities in of the World, including the highest-ranking city in the United States. (We came in at number eight in the world this year, second place (and still tops in the US) last year IIRC).

      Spokane, being the largest city between Seattle and Detroit (or something like that), hardly qualifies as being "in the wildernewss"

    4. Re:Netstumbler?? by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

      Feel free to contribute, we keep track of who uploads what, and we would be more than happy to generate maps and calculate statistics for those working on school or other projects.

      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  30. socialist Slashdot mantra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in truth, not everyone has bought into the socialist Slashdot mantra of torrent.

  31. Another typo by roger6106 · · Score: 1

    "These were gnerated..."

  32. These maps and because of /. these WAP points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    become fucking useless... Good job submitter! You are teh WINNAR! -1 Karma and kick to the nuts!

  33. If you can't dodge bullets you deserved to die by Polarism · · Score: 1

    I mean really, people have to be just asking for me to kill them when i'm running down the street with my AK-47 spraying rounds everywhere. If they can't dodge them that's their fault.

    What has the world come to?

    --
    All your base are belong to Google.
  34. convert to DjVu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone please convert this huge PNG map to DjVu.
    http://www.djvuzone.org
    http://djvu.sf.net
    http://any2djvu.djvuzone.org

  35. Arrests-Hammer Time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is such a horrible analogy. In order to steal things from you, first I'd have to enter your house, without authorization."

    Identity theft.

    "If you broadcast into my space, it should be fully within my rights to take advantage of whatever data or service is on those waves."

    Geeks make lousy lawyers.

    1. Re:Arrests-Hammer Time. by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      "This is such a horrible analogy. In order to steal things from you, first I'd have to enter your house, without authorization."

      Identity theft.


      The parent suggested it was as if someone ransacked their living room. I was referring back to this analogy. Identify theft is certainly not the same as ransacking a livingroom.

      "If you broadcast into my space, it should be fully within my rights to take advantage of whatever data or service is on those waves."

      Geeks make lousy lawyers.


      So, you really don't think you should be able to receive radio waves and interact with them accordingly based on standard protocols? That is fucking crazy man. What next, are we going to outlaw physics completely?

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

  36. [SVGZ] Vector my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These maps should have been distributed as SVGZ.

  37. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigh. What good does that do when there are no decent Linux or BSD drivers for current wifi cards.

  38. Legality?-Wrong Crowd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is this legal? Are would it only be illegal if something like the Induce Act was passed? It seems to me that someone out there is going to think this is illegal and prosecute. Oh, and it's "generated."

    You're asking for legal advice from this crowd? That's like asking for dating tips?

  39. Seattle? Is that north of Watford? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and do I *look* like I give a fuck?

  40. winrar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    use winrar, thes files are very large

    1. Re:winrar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Eureka!

      No more codecs, lets use a winrar algorithm to rar each frame. yay for efficienty.

      Not sarcasm. People "zipping"/"rarring" pictures (without checking the actually "compression ratio" after trying to put such a huge file through the algorithm.) are pretty funny.

  41. Arrests-Busted Time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So, you really don't think you should be able to receive radio waves and interact with them accordingly based on standard protocols? That is fucking crazy man. What next, are we going to outlaw physics completely?"

    What I think is exactly what I said. I 'm not going to decide on doing something, or not doing something nor base my legal defense on any "legal" advice given on this forum. That goes for you as much as anyone else here.

    1. Re:Arrests-Busted Time. by OzPhIsH · · Score: 1

      I'm not giving any legal advice. If anyone has taken anything I've said as "legal advice" they need a lot more than a real fucking lawyer. A big fat reality check maybe. I'm simply posing my unprofessional opinion on what I think should be legal behavior. Not on what is or isn't legal, but what I personally think should be. And as I said, I believe that we should have the freedom to take advantage of some nitwit that has made their internet connection available over a wireless network.

      --

      "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    2. Re:Arrests-Busted Time. by michaeldot · · Score: 1

      And as I said, I believe that we should have the freedom to take advantage of some nitwit that has made their internet connection available over a wireless network.

      You may be right, but doesn't that just confirm what I said about lack of respect for other people's possessions...?

      Some nitwit drops his wallet in the street, so of course we should have the legal freedom of "finders, keepers."

      I mean, if he's too stupid to secure it in his back pocket and it's just lying there on the sidewalk - which is MY space since I've just stepped on it - it should be mine to strip the cash out of and toss the cards in the bin. You know, forget looking up his address and returning the wallet to him like a decent human being would do.

      (Actually that gives me an idea: this wardriving map could be used for good: use it to email the admins and tell them their back pockets are open.)

  42. Now hosted on my fast server by agoodm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hosted on my fast server for your convenience. Hosted for a limited time as this is eating bandwidth... UW Printable maps non bittorent fast mirror http://files.photojerk.com/wifiuwprodraster.zip for raster map!!! Use http://files.photojerk.com/wifiuwprodvector.zip for vector map. Alan

    1. Re:Now hosted on my fast server by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 1

      Fast? The DL is only a paltry 150 Kilobytes per second. j/k

  43. Whoa, wrong attitude! by mikeb39 · · Score: 1

    That's entirely the wrong attitude, and one that makes wardrivers and wireless enthousiasts cringe to hear it. It's akin to saying, "he left his car unlocked, so I took it and drove it around. It's his fault for not locking the door."

    The justification behind using default network ones is both moral (from our standpoint) and legal. Wireless networks are broadcast in the public band, anyone can listen. It's against the law to break encryption to get onto a network, just as it's against the law to decode encrypted army messages, but it's entirely okay to listen to FM radio wherever and whenever you want. That's what people with "default" access point are doing, publicly broadcasting something anyone has the right to "listen" to.

  44. Now you too can be arrested for [selfishness] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sigh* The above illustrates perfectly what's wrong with our world. Right and wrong has to be spelled out in explicit detail ballooning the legal sytem to proportions that require lawyers to understand.*

    In a world were right and wrong were implicitly understood. We would recognize that even if something wasn't secured. We weren't to take advantage of someone's oversight. And we might even go to the trouble to point out the mistake, and at best help correct it.

    However that's not the present world were anyone else's mistake is seen as an opportunity for exploitation for our own gain[1]. And informing the victum of their oversight would obviously not be to our advantage (at least the old hacker credo had one doing the right thing).

    *You all want a simpler legal system? Stop trying to see everything as an opportunity to exploit for personal gain.

    [1] Actually even people's generosity are exploited for all it's worth and then some.

    1. Re:Now you too can be arrested for [selfishness] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, that's not it. There is a standard and it includes ways of telling you to go away. There is no other way to distinguish between a deliberately open access point and one where the owner doesn't care enough. The wardrivers are not trespassing. They are on public ground listening to and sending on public channels. If you don't want them to use your access point, give them a chance to recognize that. I'm perfectly fine with people closing their access points. I don't need to and don't want to use the bandwidth of people who don't offer it deliberately, but the clueless take away my chance of finding actual public hotspots by not securing their own.

  45. Insecure by ignorance or design? by John+Newman · · Score: 1

    Especially in Seattle, you can't assume that every open access point is that way only because the owner doesn't know how to secure it. Many folks leave their access points open intentionally, as a service to the community. There's even a substantial, organized effort, Seattle Wireless, to encourage more folks to do so.

    In light of this, I think the whole argument about whether finding and using APs is illegal is nonsense. What's the difference between an open-by-ignorance and open-by-design AP? Nothing. Maybe this is an argument for routers to ship with some sort of security on by default, but clearly you can't consider all war-driving in Seattle to be prima facie malicious.

    1. Re:Insecure by ignorance or design? by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

      We just wanna show how many APs there are in whatever given area. Perhaps when we released the maps, we could have inlcuded information about our intentions, and a reminder that using unauthorized networks is not recommended. We'll remember for next time!

      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  46. hmm by seann · · Score: 1

    *pets designjet 120*

    Looks like we have a date.

    --
    I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    1. Re:hmm by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

      =_)

      I keep searching EBay for ink for my Encad Novajet II. Of course, I'll either print maps of where I am, Pittsburgh.

      on second thought...

      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  47. You still need wardriving and maps ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In magor Southern Ontario cities finding an open access point is as easy as turning on your laptop. There's 6 I can hit from house of which only 2 (1 is mine) are encrypted.
    The ones I like are where they have changed the name of the AP but not enabled security.

  48. Want dating tips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're asking for legal advice from this crowd? That's like asking for dating tips

    If you want good dating tips, read the Sex HOWTO by a hacker stud Eric S. Raymond.

  49. THANK YOU! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    Yes, thank you -- we did not include indentifiable information for the owners of the APs -- no MACs, no street addresses, no names. The original point of this map and WiFiMaps.com is to show just how many of these things are being deployed. There's a shitload!

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  50. Vector lines, vs Raster aerial photos by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    I was describing the output -- drawings of lines, versus the raster aerial photographs, of course.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  51. I wish I saw my house =_( by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    I wish I saw my house on that map =_(

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  52. How accurate does it need to be? by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    The issue is that the strenght of the signal is not a linear function of distance.

    I agree with you, but don't think it hinders the system as much as it might seem. The key is that most base stations have limited range -- if I can detect the signal at some normal strength level (e.g., not using a cantenna), I know I'm within a 50-100 meters of the transmitter.

    What got me thinking about this was my experience on a recent business trip. Sitting in my room at a bed-n-breakfast, I was picking up 4 wireless networks - the network of the B&B, the one from an adjacent B&B, and two other networks in the residential neighborhood. I doubt there are many places in which all four networks are detectable. Conversely, that means that if I can detect all four networks, I must be in a particular fairly small error circle (say within 1/4 to 1/2 a city block) within the overlap of the four networks.

    A simple WiFi navigation system would use binary detect/no-detect data to determine location. If one can detect stations A, B, and R, then one must be in a particular street, near a particular corner.

    Yes, some transmitters might be detectable over a much greater distances. These signals are much less useful for navigation because detecting them does not mean one is in any particular location. But with enough data, the system can easily learn to ignore signals from longer-range WiFi transmitters.

    Yes, some transmitters might be temporarily undetectable due to being off or in a magic voodoo WiFi dead-zone. But the statistical logic of the navigation system could be tied to what is detectable and not use any evidence about what isn't detectable.

    A more sophisticated system could use signal strength, but it would need a much greater volume of data in order to compute statistically meaningful location estimates. Although the signal drop-off is not isotropic, time-invariant, it is not statistically arbitrary. One is unlikely to get a strong signal at 150 meters from a normal WiFi station. Statistical variations in signal strength with distance would determine the error region around any estimate of location.

    As I said, it will never beat GPS. But it would be cool to calculate where you are from who you can hear.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  53. Anything outside America by oshy · · Score: 1

    Would like to find one that covers my own area, but the maps on that site dont cover the UK.