Slashdot Mirror
Wi-Fi Piggybacking Widespread
BaCa sent in this article about stealing network access that opens, "Sophos has revealed new research into the use of other people's Wi-Fi networks to piggyback onto the internet without payment. The research shows that 54 percent of computer users have admitted breaking the law, by using someone else's wireless internet access without permission." Of course, online polls being what they are, the results are hardly a plank for a full investigation, but a good share of the answerers did 'fess up to it as well.
but how is it illegal?
Oh, come on .. I can't believe it's not more like 90 or 95 percent. In fact, I'm typing this while "borrowing" my neighbor's linksys network. The admi--
$$%110113944 NO CARRIER
"Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound
What about people who keep their access points open and connect to other people's access points when they're away? I'd imagine that if somebody purposefully leaves their AP open that it wouldn't be stealing. The trouble is knowing if somebody intentionally has an unsecured WAP or if the person just never knew/bothered to secure it.
Considering many systems are configured to latch on to the strongest unprotected wifi signal they see, I've piggy-backed several times without intent.
If you can't be bothered to set up even 40-bit WEP, then you have nothing to complain about. Hell, there are five signals that I can see from my house! Your RF is in my space! I should charge rent.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Seriously, it wasn't that long ago that this type of thing was a widespread geek pastime. I remember popping an antenna on the hood of the car and driving through town sniffing packets and laughing at those who were completely unencrypted.
I got a catholic block.
The article asserts that logging onto someone's AP without their permission is "breaking the law", but is that really clear? Do I have to explicitly ask for permission before I walk into a restaurant? Of course not -- there's a reasonable expectation that there are no barriers to my entry, so I'm allowed (even invited) in. But, while I think physical analogies to computer situations can be very misleading, in the real world entry becomes illegal when you've had to defeat some protection mechanism (a lock) to get in.
So, to summarize: I feel like cracking someone's WEP key to get on their net is pretty damn illegal. But I don't think hopping onto an open net is unsecured. In fact, the fact that it's open may be interpreted as a sign that the owner intends to allow open access!
--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation.
You start by just stealing that one song. Then another, then another. Pretty soon your stealing movies, games, operating systems. Now you move up to what's known as speedballing - stealing songs using someone elses wifi. You try to hide your addiction by using proxies, but you can't hide from your own thoughts. Sooner or later, you'll be stealing large chunks of the internet. And one day - one day - you'll be found dead in alley clutching your hacked iPhone and box of sim chips. The police probably won't even investigate your death.
When you have an ornery parent...that REFUSES to get broadband...even if he's paying MORE for dialup through earthlink...you get desperate when you're visiting. Especially when two or three neighbors are running unsecured WiFi.
I think it should be legal unless you're cracking someone's WEP or WPA to get in.
Somehow, "checking my email" is conflated with "stealing." I don't see it.
I fail to understand why this is illegal. I know that there is the argument that "you wouldn't go into their house if it the door was open and steal something!". Well no, I wouldn't. However, this being a technology issue (and a fairly recent one at that) I think it needs to be held to a different standard.
If you fail to secure your network that tells me you don't care if people access it, and I think you should be allowed to share your access if you feel like it. I'm no computer genius... I couldn't get Ubuntu to run on my laptop (I can't believe I just admitted that on Slashdot, please don't stone me), but I was able to secure down my network just fine without any problems at all.
Now, if you do something illegal WHILE accessing someones network, then yes you should be held accountable. But just accessing an open network to browse the news or check emails should be a non-issue. Don't we have drunk drivers and murderers and such to deal with instead?
If using unsecured wifi without permission is illegal, then the law is completely unenforceable. In modern residential areas it is not uncommon to be able to access around 10 connections, many of which are unsecured. Regular people do not care which access point they are connected to. Computers will usually pick the strongest unsecured signal (barring that the computer in question is not defaulted to the owner's wifi) making many homeowners in neighborhoods accidentally break the law. Laws like this need to be better examined before the are enacted.
I have a wireless router that has the wireless turned off. My old router died and it was cheaper to buy a wireless one than a wired only one. They do come up open to the world by default. You have to actively lock it down. I would think that if they are open by default and that is how 90% leave them, there really should be no legal grounds for prosecution other than the judge's own technological ignorance.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
How is putting up an unsecured Wi-Fi connection any different than putting up an unsecured website?
oh, and here's one just for you people who like "it's like entering my house" analogies...
AccountKiller
Download MP3s from P2P networks without worrying about being sued by the RIAA?
... wait, I mean ...
Er
- Roach
...what's wrong with filling up your bucket? My in-laws were considering going highspeed from dial-up but were on the fence. For $130 in wiring and equipment, I was able to tap off an open line-of sight connection that was amped up to reach 5 or 6 miles (grain elevator to grain elevator). The free wifi love lasted for 9 moths before someone re-adjusted the antennas & took their house out of the signal 'overspray'. The point? The network is still not secure (it's business connection, even). Their bandwidth wasn't used in a gluttonous way (i.e no p2p). No harm, no foul. If anything, it was to the benefit of the ISP because after the antennas were fixed, they acquired a new account.
Seriously. I leave mine open. If I see someone abusing the privilege I'll kick them off, but if someone wants to check google maps real quick then I'm happy to have been of help. There's been a large number of situations in my own past where an open network was of immense help, and I like the idea of being able to return the favor in some sense. I really hate the idea that the default way we're supposed to approach anyone is under the assumption that they're both too stupid to secure their connections, and too selfish to want anything but that.
Everything will be taken away from you.
Furthermore, if you've hopped onto your next door neighbours' wireless broadband connection to illegally download movies and music from the net, chances are that you are also slowing down their internet access and impacting on their download limit. For this reason, most ISPs put a clause in their contracts ordering users not to share access with neighbours - but it's very hard for them to enforce this.
So ISP's are trying to protect me from sharing my access with my neigbours and thus getting a slow internet connection. How very considerate!
We set our SSID to "Open WIFI" so everyone knows we're sharing on purpose with the hopes that guests will do the same.
I intentionally leave my AP open so that anyone can use it if they wish. I don't see how this could be illegal for them if the owner of the access point, and the person paying for the bandwidth doesn't care if people use it. There's never more than one or two people on, I've never noticed my speed decrease because of it.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I definitely agree; Mod parent up. We have dial-up. My neighbors have broadband with an unsecured WiFi AP. They don't say don't come in, in fact, my computer asks their router "May I come in?" and their router always says, "Sure! Here's your IP address." and then I'm connected. I highly doubt they notice or care - I don't download big files,* I don't do illegal stuff, I don't browse porn, etc. Why do I say they don't notice? Well, let's just say that in a Virtual Machine connected to the network and a member of the MSHOME workgroup can access all their shared docs, and their printers. I don't think this person knows much about the security.
*Except for software updates that happen automatically
That said, it's possible that I'm misinterpreting it all. Maybe I won't even finish this post before the signa
You can have anything you wish, on "linksys" wireless.
You can have anything you wish, on "linksys" wireless.
Associate, it's on channel six;
Fire up your browser and grab some bits.
An' you can have anything you wish, on "linksys" wireless,
On "linksys" wireless!
~ C.
Here are a few occasions instructing that using a wireless connection without payment, or without permission is illegal:
"Two people have been arrested in the UK for using another person's wireless internet access without permission. Neither was charged but both were cautioned for dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services with intent to avoid payment." http://www.out-law.com/page-7969
Another according to BBC NEWS where he was arrested for "Dishonestly obtaining free internet access is an offence under the Communications Act 2003 and a potential breach of the Computer Misuse Act." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6958429.stm
I look at the couple of neighbor's open APs as redundant backups for when my internet connection is down (with at&t as the telephony co, it happens a bit)
And then there was E
Look. 2.4ISM is an unlicensed band. Under 200mW, I have rights to transmit anything I want to. Period. If your router interprets it as a part of an HTTP request, that's not my fault. The "I'm swinging my arms, and if you walk into them it's your fault" theory.
And, I do think someone needs to introduce RFC 2131 (DHCP) into evidence. An open router responds to a polite request with a positive acknowledgment. It is possible to configure the box not to give that acknowledgment, probably via an encryption key, but also by MAC filters or turning off DHCP. Introduce the owner's manual while you're at it.
If someone steals my TV set, thats theft. However, the law says that I have to choose to press charges against the thief.
The same should be true with open WiFi. Unless the owner of the WiFi router or device chooses to press charges, the police should not be able to charge them (i.e. what happened in the UK)
Why not just connect them all together and maximize the use of bandwidth. That way we'll probably have free Internet access wherever we go. :-)
I hear that 100% of computer users have used someone else's HTTP server without permission!
I leave my connection open to share it with friends and neighbors who need a quick connection. It's easy to watch the flashing lights on the box next to my desk and there's never been a real problem. No one has abused it. No spammer has parked in front of my house and let loose a gazillion offers to fix the manhood of the nation. Really. It's been fine. It's like offering people a glass of water. It's like letting a traveling salesman turn around in my driveway. Some day, I hope that a contractor at my house or a doctor making a house call (hah!) will be able to use it.
Others should do the same. Sure, you can lock yours down. But this is just neighborly.
(He says as he crosses his fingers and hopes that no spammers come and take advantage of his kindness like they've learned to abuse all of the trust given to them by others on the network. Sigh.)
I have plenty of bandwidth, and my neighbours are hardly networking gurus, so I get a lot more value out of them than they get out of me. Trading a few gig a month of bandwidth for all the dirty viewing habits of three apartments full of people and the ability to dump horse porn on their desktops at will. Good deal if you ask me. Plus it keeps the music industry from pinpointing the source of all the Britney albums I upload.
Well, I believe that most people who have set up networks that are unsecure are people who hardly use the internet for purposes other than checking email /chat/news etc. I am sure most people who have a comcast connection don't utilise the full worth of it. In this case, it shouldn't be too bad if someone else uses it, albeit not causing any trouble to the original user.
Step 1: Find a neighbor who is cool and possibly technologically challenged and see if he would be cool if you used some of his bandwidth for a while. Promise free computer services if he is a tough nut to crack.
Step 2: Get a wireless router supported by DD-WRT.
Step 3: Download the haxor'd firmware from DD-WRT and configure your supported device as a wireless bridge.
Step 4: Enjoy the internets! Step 5: To show your appreciation to your neighbor, get him a supported router and do the same thing with it so you both have a fail-over connection to the series of tubes!
The game.
I leave my connection open and my SSID reads "Use but dont abuse". At any given time, there are 10 MAC addresses in my DHCP log (I have 4 devices total). From what I can tell, NO ONE abuses the connection. One person (my elderly neighbor) uses it to email her kids and grandkids. What's wrong with that? I always have the bandwidth I need, and will continue to leave it open. By the way, only one other AP in this area is open. It's SSID is: Linksys.
One other closed AP has the SSID: "Free Ride Is Over".
I live in a community. Leaving my AP open benefits others within my community without adversely affecting me.So if someones house is open then it's ok to go in and check it out and use the bed? If someones storage shed is unlocked then its ok to use their mower? Really if you want to use something that belongs to someone else or someone else is paying for then just go ask them. If you can't at least do that at worst you are a criminal and at best a coward.
And another life goes down the tubes.
A major ISP in my country includes a wireless access point with their DSL gear. Everyone has one, whether they use the wireless or not. The problem is, the access point defaults to broadcasting a completely unencrypted signal. Most people that have their internet connection plugged in physically don't ever bother to look at the 'Wireless' settings on their box (the ISP isn't kind enough to inform anyone of their poor choice of defaults), so they have no idea that their connection is wide open. It's easy to say "well, they should have secured it", but that's unreasonable...they bought a wired internet connection and weren't told it also had wireless, and they weren't told it'd be turned on whether they want it or not.
If we're willing to hold Microsoft at fault for their poor choices that allow malware to spread, I think we need to put some blame on the manufacturers here.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Doesn't the availability of so many Wi-Fi spots make it possible for people to commit Internet crime using another person's IP address?
Perhaps that's the angle that these government efforts are coming from - i.e. increased difficulty/confusion of law enforcement.
In my country, the government's publicity effort (on TV, in newspapers) uses that message.
Are they exaggerating the danger out of technical shallowness?
Or do they have a point?
Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal : ; , , ,
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:
In other news, 54% of companies that are about to IPO put out an excessive number of press releases with dubious studies that might get them attention.
Take everything with a grain of salt.
--Q
My house is pretty far from the street. I figured that since I can't even access the network from across the house, there there should be no problem with other people using it. Then my friend downloaded a file onto his laptop as we left the neighborhood... oops. I suppose I should do something about the unsecured Windows boxes in my house.
I bet a lot of people "admit" to "breaking the law" by exceeding posted speed limits, too. (Piggybacking Wi-Fi isn't always against the law, though, anyhow.)
Also, many people admit to reading sections of books at bookstores *even while not actively sipping coffee from an in-store cafe.* (Scandalous!)
Lots of people intentionally share their wireless access points, and have no objection to casual use by others. (Other's *do* mind, whether or not they bother to encrypt or contain their signal. Not saying otherwise.)
Some ISPs object, others don't care, others actively encourage it.
I know I've sometimes found directions when lost by finding an unsecured WiFi connection and firing up google maps. Do I feel especially bad about that? No, not really. I also don't feel bad about the several times I've used freely supplied, tax-funded wireless access points at libraries and some municipal buildings.
When I'm again earning money (rather than hemorrhaging it in the form of tuition), I intend to have at least some degree of accessible wireless from my home that others can use for quick connections. NoCatAuth (which I haven't looked at in a few years) seems like a smart way to set this up. I'd *like* people to be able to pop a quick email through a random wifi connection I provide, and I'd like to be able to find the same if I'm visiting another city.
Is it possible for Bad People to do Bad Things with unsecured wireless, like trigger IEDs spread misleading information through personal ads, and upload delicious recipes to North Korea? Sure, I guess -- just like it's possible for matches to be used to start forest fires. Context is everything. To assume that piggyback use is nefarious, or harmful, or universally unwanted, is silly.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
"Use WEP and turn your computer off, that way no matter what your computer cant be hacked of its switched off" -- Nintendo's OFFICIAL justification for not including WPA support on the Nintendo DS
They no comment on the threat of WiFi piggy backing
Make SELinux enforcing again!
This isn't dial-up BBS. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
x2.
Forgetting about the abusers (whom deserve to die IMO, which, incidentally, is I why I no longer run Tor), open access is The Future.
Neal Stephenson nailed it decade ago.
"Wifi piggybacking" is just communication, and standards compliant communication at that. There's nothing that a person accessing another person's unencrypted wireless network is doing which isn't covered by the design of the wireless network standards. Anyone has the right to use the frequency band and if you respond, that's entirely your decision to make. It's not wrong to use a public resource (the 2.4GHz ISM frequency band) in a standard compliant way. It's wrong to inadvertently or intentionally pretend that you're offering a publicly accessible network, but then turn around and say you didn't intend to give access to your network and have the people who took your beacons at face value prosecuted (and it's stupid, because your data is still going over the air unencrypted and you won't catch a passive eavesdropper as easily.)
"54 percent of computer users have admitted breaking the law, by using someone else's wireless internet access without permission." Thus what Sophos is telling us, that every second person in the world who uses a computer knows how to do this? This is a very stupid globalisation from a handfull (560) of people they have tested. Further Sophos does not provide the NORM data (i.e. age, technical abilities, degrees etc) of the group tested. Therefor the survey is useless. Thus get real, Sophos and learn how to do proper data sampling before you go around and tell everyone what YOU have found.
to code or not to code, that is the question.
I can see over 50 wireless networks from my Brooklyn apartment (very high density population here). Almost all of the networks are protected. My own router would crap out every once in a while, and my only point of access was this network called 'Salvation'. Salvation indeed! Whoever ran this, I assume, did it as public service. I took the idea and ran with it. My open network was called 'freebeer!!!', and I kept the router next to the window. I'd have about 5 people logged in at any given point. Never felt a performance hit on my end.
The netgear router eventually died, and my linksys replacement is also run unprotected, except it's named after my band's name. Only rarely do I see people logged on to the network. They know the music sucks without even listening to it!
That being said, as someone who willingly shares his network connection, I have no issues logging onto any available wi-fi point I can find: regardless if it's open intentionally or not. My only complaint is that most people choose to have their networks closed off. I guess to most users it is only an issue of security. Spirit of sharing? blah. Even though you are paying for something that you only ever use sporadically, sharing is a no-no. IPs must be very happy about how human nature interprets this particular topic.
Imagine is EVERYONE shared? ha! We'd have a full blown democracy! Or communism, if you are a pure capitalist.
You waste my time quoting an online poll.
I think (in the UK anyway) that this is considered a crime with relevant case law to back this up (I'd look for it but it's gone 3am now and I don't feel like it) but I really can't see why it should be illegal or how anyone can consider it to be wrong morally.
No analogy is going to be perfect when trying to think about these situations (and has been mentioned it is nothing like walking into someone's house) but when you look at what happens I don't get where the immorality comes in, consider;
It is actually more effort to set up a router with no security than with a little WEP key
Given that the person who is running the network could easily be responsible for the data which is downloaded (warez, child porn, etc.) you'd think that there is a serious incentive to actually put some security on
So whoever leaves their wifi open must be willing to take these risks just to help out the 99% of the population out their who won't screw them over... so I think we can reasonably conclude that anyone who does it really wants to do so, a bit like becoming root - you know the dangers but push ahead because when push comes to shove it is your computer, and you want it to serve you. In the same way, it is your router. Take charge.
Also if we could get the law changed regarding responsibility for other's criminal action's I'd be happy to share, but until then I don't trust random strangers enough to entrust my reputation/living/freedom to them. I think some companies have an open system linked to logins, that seems like a good idea...
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
but how is it wrong?
In 2004, I was covering the Presidential debate and Kerry rally following it in Phoenix.
The press facilities at the debate were adequate, but sucked nine kinds of ass at the Kerry rally.
As per company policy, I FTP'd my photos in following the event only to find out that most of them were received as corrupted.
So I drove around with my laptop on the passenger seat looking for an open wireless point. I drove past a house with every light on, and an open access point. Since the light was on, I decided to ring the doorbell to let the homeowner know who was camped out in front of their driveway with a laptop.
The guy came to the door and said the wireless was 'obviously' open for all to use, since he didn't lock it down. He told me I was welcome to come in and sit in the house while I worked, provided that he and his wife could look over my shoulder at the pictures.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
I leave my access point open as a sort of 'gratuity' to the public. And as one Slashdotter had pointed out, my SSID contains 'don't abuse' in the string. I pay for the bandwidth, so what's the problem. ISP's seem to be taking clues from the RIAA / MPAA's 'YOU'RE STEALING' if you don't get it from us bullshit.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
I would say that the beacon and authentication process would communicate that permission is granted:
For decades much of the computer using community has taken the settings of things like file permissions as not just a technical access control, but an expression of intent.
For instance:
- If a file's permission is read-group or read-world and it is sitting in a directory that is also group or world accessible, anyone might chose to examine it at any time, without notice to, or explicit permission from, the owner.
- If it (or the containing directories) is not read-enabled, users with adequate system permission or knowledge of system internals may be ABLE to read it. But (if they behaved ethically) they would normally NOT do so unless the had either explicitly obtained permission from the file owner or were performing the access as something necessary to their job function - in which case they'd read it as little as possible.
Tools (such as mail readers) were normally designed to set the permissions of files they created in accordance with the likely wishes of the users.
IMHO continuing that logic makes perfect sense.
A significant number of people deliberately make their access points available to any non-disruptive transient user, as a community service. This is often done by leaving them at their default settings. Meanwhile, access points have a fine mechanism for putting up a "no trespassing" sign: WEP encryption. It's very weak and can be trivially broken. But turning it on makes it clear that the AP's owner did not intend for the AP to be used without explicit permission, and breaking the encryption makes it clear that a user intended to disregard the owner's wishes. So it's like the latch on a screen door: Trivially bypassed - but clearly expressing intent.
Granted most APs are shipped with WEP turned off, so a lot of users leave them open out of ignorance rather than as an expression of intent. But IMHO the user of an open AP can plausibly deny any intent to trespass on the AP and that the user had failed to post the property as private.
So it seems to me that the appropriate stand for the legal system to take is that the WEP setting and key distribution practices of an AP's owner are an expression of the owner's intent.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
My MacBook Pro's Airport card connected to each network more or less at random. When I connected to her's, it worked OK, but when I connected to her neighbor's, it didn't work at all. Sometimes the Airport would switch networks in the middle of my use of the Internet, which really got to be a drag.
So I finally convinced her to let me rename and secure her access point. This went very well, and I was able to set up both my Mac and her WinXP laptop to use the newly secured net.
Except that I made a crucial mistake: I performed the re-configuration wirelessly. I didn't do it by plugging an ethernet cable into her access point.
Imagine my dismay when I realized I had reconfigured her neighbor's access point, and not her's!
I sat in my room quaking with fear, awaiting the heavy bootheels of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police kicking down my door so they could haul me in for being a cyberterrorist.
I never heard any complaints though, and eventually my neighbor's network was renamed to "linksys" and was again unsecured. My guess is that LinkSys tech support explained how to do a hard reset.
My question for my Slashdot friends is this: who is the Rocket Scientist at LinkSys who decided to support wireless reconfiguration of their routers?
Request your free CD of my piano music.
when its current one stops working.
I leave mine open. If I see someone abusing the privilege I'll kick them off, but if someone wants to check google maps real quick then I'm happy to have been of help. There's been a large number of situations in my own past where an open network was of immense help, and I like the idea of being able to return the favor in some sense.
;-)
Hey, who let a socially responsible person post to this discussion? Didn't we ban such people from slashdot?
As a few others have pointed out, the wifi spectrum was intentionally made open for everyone to use. The intent was a Public Good: a wireless network capability that was available to anyone (or at least anyone with standards-compliant equipment).
But it seems we have a lot of people here who are profoundly anti-open-communication, and think that people who caught communicating openly should be punished. This strikes me as a rather perverse misinterpretation of what the wifi spectrum was all about. In the US, it's also against the whole idea of the First Amendment.
We should be arguing: If you don't believe in using the wifi spectrum for free, open communication, then you shouldn't be using it. Pay for a license to use your own block of restricted spectrum. Go away and don't bother those of us who want a small chunk of spectrum to remain a Public Good.
We also need more people complaining that they want their AP open, and they object to official harassment of people using the wifi spectrum as it was designed to be used. Would that get the message across? Or would the officials just start harassing those of us running open APs?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I think internet access is alot like road access. Some places you can get access for free, some places you must pay, same as a tollway. If I pay for my bandwidth, I should be able to allow any amount of computers on my network as I would like. Similar to driving a bus on a toll-road. If I pay for this size vehichle to drive on this road (if I pay for this bandwidth on this ISP's network), I should be able to put as many people in the bus as I want I(I should be able to put as many people on my network as I would want). If someone hitchhikes, or jumps on the bus without me knowing (if someone connects to my network with my permission or piggy backs my network), it should be nobody's bussiness but my own. If someone were to jump on the bus without my permission, it is my responsibility to make sure they don't do it.
I DON'T KNOW OF A ROUTER SOLD THAT DOESN'T COME WITH INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO SET UP YOUR SECURITY!
Should piggy-backing be illegal? Well, how are you really going to prove that you didn't say I had permission to access your router if it is open to all for access? And from the other point of view, what if you did tell me I had access and then turned me in for "stealing" bandwidth? I'm trying to be very open-minded about this subject, but there is little to sway me into thinking that piggy-backing should be illegal...any arguments to the contrary are not only welcome, but encouraged.
I do this too. I have one of the linux-based linksys routers with traffic shaping built in so that all of my pcs get first priority and anyone else using my bandwitdth gets whatever is left over. I honestly never even notice if anyone else is on or not.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/michigan_wifi_conviction/ -- Here's a case where the precedent was set.
Sophos really aren't credible as a security/antivirus authority. Their antivirus product is somewhat ineffective, and they've recently started outputting alarmist survey results, I guess in an attempt to drum up more business for themselves.
Please guys, take these surveys (and perhaps any press release they have a hand in) with a grain of salt..
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
I've found that, if you just leave the linksys wireless router on, remote users can get access to the router itself, which, is undesirable. However, I definitely agree with the sentiment of everyone just sharing bandwidth. Is there a good FAC out there for configuring a wifi so that people can use it, but also keeping traffic so that they just use your cable line and not your other computers.. at least until you start serving up your own wifi access page.
This is my sig.
I couldn't get Ubuntu to run on my laptop ...
Try the new Gutsy Gibbon release. The install is very slick (and will preserve your Windows as a dual-boot if you want.)
The only problem I had with it was when I tried to use the Gnu replacement for Flash and it would hang the machine. Uninstalling that and installing the real shockwave product fixed that.
Also: How old is your laptop and how much RAM does it have? After I migrated to Gutsy on my 2-year-old Toshiba Tecra I tried to install Feisty or Gutsy on the old (1999) Thinkpad 600E (mainly to wipe the disk before returning it to the company IT department) - and found that the installer would hang. I believe that's because the live CD is a pretty full-blown version that keeps its must-be-variable files on a filesystem in RAM and the old machine didn't have enough.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/183702832 -- This one in Illinois http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/07/tech/main707361.shtml -- This one in Florida http://web.archive.org/web/20060701105145/http://www.katu.com/stories/87037.html -- This one in Washington http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070522-michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car.html -- And another story about the Michigan guy, for those who missed it As dumb as it sounds, to be arrested for using technology the way it was designed, it is happening. Just because computers running Windows automatically do it by default, does not mean you won't get arrested. It's ridiculous, but true. Welcome to the 21st century, where it's considered a felony(by cops and judges) to turn on a standard wifi enabled computer running Windows.
When I first got my laptop I had a wired connection with Cox that I was paying for but no wireless access point. So for the first couple weeks I piggybacked off a commercial service.
When I got my WAP I visited the commercial site and showed them how to secure their wireless network. So I did something good for using their bandwidth.
Sure its nice, but there are also security problems associated with leaving your network open. Anyone can come by and start sniffing all traffic that goes through the network. This means that all your passwords and data (in plaintext, anyway) that go through the network can be read by anyone. And open networks are a particular target of sniffing which makes that plaintext information going through the network even more vulnerable to eavesdropping.
I know it depends on what you are doing... but if you aren't pretty sure about the safety of the access point you are connecting to, you are opening yourself to potentially serious security problems. The person running the open network can easily redirect any address he wants to one of his own choosing - i.e. one under his control. You enter "www.passwordsite.com" but are connected to his web-server - presenting you with a login that looks exactly like what you are expecting. You try to login, can't because it isn't the real site, but the fake site just displays some kind of plausible error message about excessive load or something so you ignore it. You try again later, but since he's seen you mac address before and knows that he's already harvested your info for that site, this time he just passes you to the real site. He now has whatever information you entered and you're none the wiser. (This is why some sites now present you with some "secret information" of your choice, which you should verify, before you enter your password.)
This has been my thinking also, but I wanted first to find a way to limit the bandwidth for guests. That way, I can just leave the router open and not have to police the bandwidth. There's got to be a way to restrict bandwidth by MAC address or something, but I haven't figured it out yet.
It's not "stealing" if you still have it when I "take" it. Any more than reading your newspaper over your shoulder is "stealing".
Because practically all these WiFi piggybacks are accessing over 11Mbps segments leading to something like 1.5-8Mbps Internet connections, the users probably never see any reduction in WiFi bandwidth. And since most people are just hitting web pages, which has mostly time the WAN pipe isn't being used (while people read the page), there's probably little competition for WAN bandwidth, too.
This whole thing is stupid. If someone wants to keep their WiFi to themselves, it's easy to close it, especially if they notice any problems. Just like it's easy to close your shades if when you don't want people peeking in your windows. If you leave the shades up, you're inviting company.
--
make install -not war
Speaking of stealing spectrum, I've also stolen the light that comes out of people's houses. It goes into my eyeballs, and I carry it home. I hope I don't get caught!
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Where do you live? I'm just wondering, because I have to pay for T-Mobile at Starbucks and some other gizmo at Mickey D's. I have to prepay for an hour minimum for (last time I checked) $6/hr. They've got the same broadband as I do... It's a money making proposition - Not free.
Both the cable company and Ma Bell gave me wireless routers with their broadband service. They insisted, even though I already was completely set up. They told me not to mess with the settings and password protected the setup (actually I gave away the things after resetting to factory defaults). Their wireless in both cases was set up as completely open.
Every so often my WinXP laptop decides to connect to a neighbor and this seems to always happen when I need to access another machine here or print something and am in a hurry. Almost all neighbors are open as well.
I think with all local major ISPs locking wireless APs to open access it would be hard to convince a court someone was doing something wrong by accessing the net that way (but you never know, SCO has been going on for how long now?).
A friend at IBM says their policy is to prohibit employees from accessing other people's APs without express permission as it might be considered illegal. Perhaps this is wise for a company in order to protect themselves, but for personal use I can't really see much harm.
Just name it, code and section.
You do it on accident because you don't know what your doing? My sister complained about getting connected to her neighbors wifi, and her computer doing it automatically, said it happened every once in a while and she couldn't stop it. Next time i visited i fixed the problem, but is this one of those times where ignorance would make it not illegal? (or even wrong) If it's not secured at all, the person who has the wifi should have some accountability, in my book.
This is useful, on-point information. Thanx, AC
I've done this, and I have no idea why it should be illegal.
When I moved into my new flat, it took a few days for Internet Access to start working. During those days, I checked my mail on some of the many unencrypted wifi networks my neighbours had set up. After I got my own router, I explicitly set it up without encryption to allow others in a similar position to do the same. As long as they don't use up all of my bandwith, I really don't care.
I don't mind others using my wifi, and I don't see why it should be illegal for them to do it.
Wouldn't those running public access points off of residential internet connections be violating the law (and/or their ISP's AUP) for unlicensed redistribution of service?
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
I have an almost-obsolete AP that I use for my public AP and a different (protected) one that I use for my own use that is connected to my LAN. I wouldn't be surprised if you could hack the almost-free Fon routers to do this in one unit, since they come with two separate SSIDs.
I'm usually very open about things like this (i.e. I run F/LOSS, and do my best to champion it, and the ideals I have learned from it wherever I go), but this has absolutely nothing to do with something like that. If someone is using my wireless connection who shouldn't be, regardless of whether they are doing something illegal and/or whether I have encrypted the traffic on said connection, I'm going to kick their asses off!!! Plain and simple. Regardless of whether I choose (and yes, this is a fucking choice, unfortunately) to encrypt my wireless traffic or not! Now, GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
I can't see what's the real difference between the public place with free WiFi and someone's unprotected WiFi where intent and knowledge is concerned. Here in St. Petersburg, Russia, I know of several places (cafes etc.) that offer free WiFi, but not many of them actually advertise it. In fact, most of them do not. Moreover, not a single free access point I know has SSID containing the word "free" or anything like that. Knowing this, I can assume that if I see an unprotected WiFi AP, its owner really does offer me access.
They don't have it in McD's here though (yet) - that's in the UK, so the info is 2nd hand :
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/news/item/6138_Fast_Food_Free_Wi-Fi.php
Max.
I don't see how is that illegal when i am sitting in my room and if i turn on my notebook .. i am instantly connected to internet via neighbours wi-fi AP..
If he broadcasts the signal to my room and it's unencrypted signal my notebook automatically connects to it so i think that this is not stealing/illegal because it's an open network anyway.
Haven't bumped into this myself yet, still it is something to keep in mind.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9008399
and frequently have done in the past. My only grumble is when somebody connects and troughs all my bandwidth (sure they didn't mean to, but it's a bit rude).
New Belkin N1 router, whilst not being a 'great' router, does have a nice feature in that it can support 2 SSIDs - a normal one on your network and a guest one. Now assuming you could configure this so guest/open SSID only has WAN access, could maybe have bandwidth/transfer capped and set data just to be best effort - then this would solve pretty much all the problems (and people who don't like sharing would just never turn it on).
Leads me onto another issue, home routers currently are very very boring. Probably been the last 5 years since they've taken off. How's about them being able to do something a bit more interesting? If you live in a built up area, they could all mesh themselves together with an agreed protocol and do fancy stuff like providing high burst rates, local high-speed p2p, geographically contextual websites etc.
I spent many years as a radio hobbyist, including scanners, shortwave, etc., and this sort of debate used to come up about cell phone transmissions and other "sensitive" frequencies. The hobbyist's theory always was, hey, if you broadcast it through the air on radio frequencies that intrude into my space, penetrating my walls and even my body, I have a right to access and monitor them -- if you don't want me to listen, the burden is on you to scramble the transmission. Same thing with Wi-Fi -- an open, unsecured connection floating beyond the boundaries of your home is an open invitation for others to tap in -- lock it down if you don't want others to use it.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
> Seriously. I leave mine open
I don't. Anyone off the street can then download kiddie porn over my connection and my ISP will gladly hand over my details when subpoenaed by the courts. Even if I'm miraculously NOT found guilty myself, I'm unlikely to get my computers back for some months - if ever. If people want to share their network, then you should use something like FON FON. But even then, I'm not sure they log exactly who used your network on what time/date etc so it may be of little help if you get taken to court. Leaving your network completely open by disabling the security features and therefore permitting ANONYMOUS usage of your personal connection that's in your name has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've come across.
Couple of years ago, I got a call from a client. Seems his wireless wasn't working anymore. So I packs up my kit and run right over there.
... many explanations later ...
"Where's the access point?"
"What's an access point?"
"No, no, no! You don't know what you are talking about. I just ordered a Dell with a wireless card and it connected right up! But it doesn't work anymore. Get it back!"
A quick look showed 3 SSID's, but, lo and behold, they were all encrypted. I can only assume that the neighbors noticed extra traffic/connections and closed them down. When I left he was yelling about getting someone who really knew about computers to come and fix the problem.
Rather than taking a two block hike around the cul-de-sac, it's shouldn't be any more illegal than cutting across someone's yard to get to the store. As long as you don't take anything, not go peeking through windows, nor make a mess of the place - no harm no foul. But in this sense, it's taking the convienient route to the internet. There shouldn't be any problem with the wifi owners if the service they're making avaiable is not abused.
I doubt most people with wifi are the ones bitching about it though. (Most quick emails or browsing doesn't take up enough bandwidth to even be noticable.) But rather the ISPs the wifi owners are connecting through. They want some kind of cut. But if the wifi owner isn't actively charging for a connection, then what is the ISP's cut of $0? And if ISPs are going to charge extra to folks who have wifi, expect a lot more complaints against the industry... Why should someone with wireless pay more if it is properly secured and "not publicly available"? Who's going to keep track, etc.?
flawed, that is: u can't compare taking a physical object with accessing radio transmissions.
the law establishing the fcc made it a right to receive any transmission, and any law prohibiting such is invalid.
an open wireless, offering a connection via dhcp to anyone in range, is an invitation to enter. making it illegal to accept that invitation amounts to entrapment.
the fact that there are such absurd laws illustrates the maxim: 'the law is a ass'
If someone leaves a cookie jar in a table in front of his/her house, is it a crime to take a cookie unless there's a sign above it saying FREE COOKIES in large friendly letters?
So people are free to use the spectrum however they see fit(this is, loosely, how the regulation is worded), as long as you personally agree that their use is appropriate?
Wifi spectrum is unregulated, not happy touchy feely.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Big deal. If you sign a contract saying that only members of your household will use the network access you're paying for, then you're in breach of it when you leave your access point open to all and sundry and all and sundry choose to use it. No one is stopping you using the Wi-Fi spectrum in the common arena, what they are objecting to is people in breach of contract because they are letting everyone use the upstream connection to the Internet at large.
Find an ISP that lets you do what you want, or lobby existing ISPs for it. Until then, the ISPs are pretty much right.
IT ISN'T A CAR.
If cars were constantly renewable (every 1 and 0 you get from a wireless router is brand new and unused and will never be used again) then maybe you could make an analogy that didn't suck.
Do you take the sugar from the bowl at the resturaunt? Why isn't that stealing? There's no "sugar: 0p" on your bill, there's no reduction if you DON'T use sugar and there's no notice saying "free sugar".
If I walk into the resturaunt and I walk out again, did I steal their heat? It was cold outside and I didn't buy anything and took up space that paying customers could have used (after all, there's a limited size to the building).
No. And these analogies suck too. WPA is like a WPA.
My Access point at home is locked down as I'm away for a few months and can't be sure whether people will abuse it although when I get back I intend to allow access if people need it, I figure that as it IS illegal to connect to unsecured wifi within the Uk I will re-name it to something obvious for an intentionally open device. As a side note whilst I have been away I have been stealing (yes i'm in the uk so the term is correct) someone else's wifi but I have also been searching for the owner so I can inform him of the state of his network. Although funny story last night it wouldn't work so after finding out the routers ip I connected to it and ran a fix on the connection :p hope he appreciates it, probably saved him a support call.
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
to allow anyone to connect.
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 54 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Piece of shit, piece of shit, piece of shit.
Damnit! I'd just modded you up for that part about your band sucking but then I got to the capitalism part. Captitalism just doesn't enter into sharing or not sharing. Capitalism just says that you shall not be kept from owning and selling stuff. It doesn't say that you must sell stuff.
The laws were passed by lawmakers bribed by telco's. (campain contribution == bribe)
Last year I started bringing my laptop to the community swimming pool so I could keep
an eye on my kids and still do some work. There was an open network close by and
I used it. People asked me if I had internet access, and liked the idea of being able
to mix pleasure and work. So this year the pool installed a wireless access point and
got its own internet line. Lots of people took advantage of this during the summer.
(low cost market research)
I fix my neighbors computers and in return have access to their wireless network.
I have my own but it is slower so when I need to do big downloads I do it over their
network. (this is payment in kind)
I have 2 wireless networks in my house one open one closed, the only abuse I have seen
on my network was neighbors kid trying to access porn that was blocked on his
home network. Can't say I blame him, I mentioned to him that I had noticed his
use and seeing him turn bright red was worth it.
On number of occations I have used other people's networks to check e-mail or catch up
on news, I never try to do anything bandwith consuming as that is not polite to do without
asking. Once a friend bought a wireless router for their house and had me set it up
for them without broadcasting the Network ID.
Next time I was over (few months later) they where complaining that the
wireless network was slow and unreliable, after checking things out I discovered that
they where using a neighbors network not their own because they clicked on the first
network that popped up.
If you leave your network open and broadcast your Network ID, it is a statement that
you allow responsible sharing of the network.
As long as we continue calling net access via unprotected gateways, music file downloading, etc 'STEALING' we are not going to be able to deal with the problems that are real.
It isn't stealing. For music, it is copying without permission. that is wrong, but it isn't worse than murder, as US federal law currently maintains, and it isn't 'Piracy'. Piracy is a crime that involves murder, theft and the destruction of property, with rape and enslavement frequently thrown in. None of that happens on line. It isn't even physically possible.
For net access, there are less drastic means to fix things. I run a home network that is open. I know that at least one neighbor has used it for their access. For the occasional email or light browsing, that's not a problem. I pay for the connection so that my family can use the net. As long as we are not inconvenienced, we are not harmed. My ISP has contracted with us to provide a certain level of data throughput, so they aren't out. We can't exceed our contract amount anyway. Where there is no harm, there is no reason for a stupid law.
If I were running a business this would be different. Then, I wouldn't be running it wide open. Where someone has to break in, it should be illegal, but any open network connection should be able to be used.
Can anyone show me where I'm wrong?
P.S. I did have one incident where somebody was downloading something big, and we had seriously degraded performance on our home wifi. I solved it by unplugging the wifi for 15 minutes. Never happened again. Simple solutions are the best.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
welcome to our website: http://www.a-one-shoes.com/ We hope become your reliable shoes supplier in Putian city of China. Authentic Shoes shoes with original box,good quality and the best service to meet your need. Our products include such as Nike Shoes ,Jordan Shoes series, Air max Shoes series, air force one, Shox shoes,Sports shoes, Adidas Shoes, Timberland Shoes, Puma Shoes Ice cream shoes, lv bags, and Bape, Lacoste ,Polo T-shirt and BBC,Evisu,Redmonkey jeans, hat etc.
Your problem is you didn't check the MAC address to make sure you were connected to and reconfiguring the right AP. Wireless config is necessary, especially for APs mounted in funky places that are hard to get at with a cable.
But the bigger problem are APs that use the same SSIDs by default. A better option would be to have them tag the name with the last 4 digits of the MAC so they were unique and more easily identifiable. They could easily do this as part of the cold-start code.
"big deal"? i guess... then again, lame and unfair contracts forced upon you due to monopolistic practices in limited supplier regions should be stood up too ... they have us by the short hairs so often. they could say anything they want in the contract, so if we don't agree should we just forgoe and cut ourselves off? maybe you can only afford it if you share, or maybe after you got done paying for all that bandwidth you don't use, you feel like you have a right, regardless of what the revenue strategist executives thought up in the contract, to share it with your buddy who lives next door. or maybe offer it as an emergency service to others. or hell anything you damn well please and screw the contract- you aren't hurting anyone, your bandwidth is still limited by your service level. if they cant support it, then dont sell it. from the article- "depriving the isps of revenue" yeah... ok. give me a break
If 54% of adults admitted that they regularly used marijuana, or cheated on their taxes, or ran stop signs, you can bet your rusty router rules that the laws (or the "leadership") would be changed - in a hurry. Maybe the laws wouldn't be revoked ("yea, running stop signs is bad..."), but at least relaxed ("...just a warning").
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
An open wifi network and someone leaving the door open to their house are NOT the same thing. Just because the front door is open doesn't mean they are inviting people to come take their big screen. The wifi network is being broadcast to you, and no one is out anything if you play nice with it. A closer analogy would be if your neighbor hooked up their cable to your tv and then got upset when you watched it.
"Have you ever used someone else's Wi-Fi connection without their permission?
Yes 54%
No 46%
Sophos online survey, 560 respondents, 31 October - 6 November 2007."
Permisson is key here. Where I live permission is implicit by not securing your Access Point. That pretty much every new AP tries to secure itself unless you opt out, and most people's WiFi card will, by default automatically associate with every AP with a generic SSID and no password, means that it has it be that way. It has even been proposed to outlaw open access points, but that won't be a popular idea until a pedo gets nabbed.
Now, loitering in front of my house is a misdemeanor(arrested and fined), cracking a password (or spoofing a MAC or sniffing a nontransmitted SSID) to gain access will get you put in jail, but there is nothing illegal or wrong with connecting to an OPEN access point.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
By definition, if you receive a DHCPOFFER, return a DHCPREQUEST and in turn receive back a DHCPACKNOWLEDGE, you are absolutely unequivocally being granted express, explicit permission.
Those who claim using a network so provided is done so "without permission" might as well have their dinner guests arrested for trespassing after seating and serving them.
I'b be willing to bet that less than 54% of the total computer user base uses Wifi at all.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
every time the local tv station or cnn or whatever run a piece about unsecured wireless access points I lose a potential access point. I used to go on my balcony and explore the neighbors' networks. However now almost everything is locked down.
One thing I have noticed is that businesses like cafes pretty much leave their wireless open. I was in a cafe downtown and asked if they had wireless. The waiter said, yeah, you can get a signal from next door, it works fine.
On a side-note: I don't encrypt my signals, I only enable filtering by MAC address. Makes it simpler to hookup a new machines, especially those belonging to my clients that I am trying to fix. Much faster and better range than with encryption.
Many businesses (MacDonalds and Starbucks, for example) operate open and free access points
Lies!
Starbucks has a deal with T-Mobile to charge. According to this, a day pass is $6.
I haven't been to a McDonald's in over 10 years, but this says they have "several convenient connection options: on-line credit card payment, subscriptions, prepaid cards, or (sometimes) promotional coupons".
My experience has been that the bigger or more "corporate" the business, the less likely they are to have free Wifi. Starbucks can count on a million people a day through their stores simply because they have the green mermaid out front. The place on the corner has better coffee and all us locals go there, but since they don't have the green mermaid trump card to suck in out-of-towners, they actually have to compete with other local businesses, and that means free Wifi for us.
This example works strongly against your point.
The police in our area require you to register with them to have trespassing
enforced. I'm not sure what civil remedy we have, but we have essentially no
criminal remedy for someone trespassing on our property.
This means that, not only is a fence NOT sufficient to block trespassing,
but there must be a rather involved, two part process to declare your intent:
1) File Paperwork with the police
2) Prominently post the "no trespassing" sign.
To add insult to this, if you go through this process you grant the police total license to trespass!
If you do not go through this work, the police have total discretion as to whether to deal with trespassing (and in our area, they do not respond).
If you extended this principal to the WAP, even encryption is not enough to signal your intent.
Wifi spectrum is unregulated, not happy touchy feely.
That's the fucking point; unregulated means my laptop can talk to your access point and you can't do a thing about it except ignore my packets.
thanks for the mod! Even if you want it back now :( Perhaps there is no need to go into political idealisms in this tread, but since I went there first...
To take your idea that root of capitalism is right to ownership and free commerce, we must also assume the establishment of various laws protecting such rights. These laws become fairly complex in a mature society. My right to sell knockoff iPhones is taken away from me, for example. My ability to purchase internet service and then further distribute it for free currently falls into a gray area. I certainly can't do that with cable TV...
Right to "sell stuff" is a lovely right to have, unless your definition of 'sell' and 'stuff' differs from mine. In my original example, I think ISPs would disagree that they sold me any 'stuff' to begin with (it's a service), so I clearly can't re-sell it. If they had their way, me giving it away for free would also be considered theft: I would be depriving them of their full ownership of service.
I am not knocking capitalism. I am saying that sometimes free exchange (beer or freedom) flies directly in conflict with spirit of capitalism. Try defining the term 'ownership' with the following perimeters in mind: value=0, worth=0, price=0.
NB: Capitalism for me means laissez faire.
I would say that you have every right to sell knock-off iPhones as long as you don't say they're the real deal (in my perfect world anyhow).
The discussion was about criminal law not civil law. If it says in your contract that you can't share your connection then it's up to the phone company to enforce that clause and you to follow it if you can't take the consequences. It could hardly be called as theft unless new speak reaches a new high.
We don't have matter creators and infinite energy and infinite time yet. It's easy to define ownership without value, worth or price. If I made it with my stuff or traded my stuff for some of your stuff it's mine. If you want it then make an offer. If we had matter creators (and infinite energy) ownership would be more fuzzy (or rather less meaningful) but as long as physical objects can't exist in several places at once and sentimental value exists there will be ownership. Even if I could leech off my neighbors AP I wouldn't want to due to latency and bandwidth. There also can't be an infinite number of leechers on a single AP and a single AP can't reach around the globe. Nevermind let's just say it's a limited resource and under capitalism it will be self correcting.
If resources aren't limited then capitalism will lose much of its meaning but as long as there are limits there will be capitalism (or at least it will work barring some major changes).
You might want to read The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson if you want an interesting take on what would happen if we had matter compilers but without infinite energy.
Thanks for the reading recommendation! I'll definitively try to find a copy. The topic, the way you described it, is very intriguing...
:)
I otherwise agree with everything you have said, but only as far as it relates to capitalism as a social model (individual rights and so on...) When we talk about capitalism as an economic model, you can not go too deep into the discussion before discussing the concept of competition.
In social model, yes we may be competing for jobs, real estate , and other tangible goods, but it is in our outermost interest to coexist together. It is a social network after all. In economic model, there is a predatory instinct to reject coexistence. With limited resources (as you have well stated) harmony with stagnant capital gains is suicide. The only way up is to eliminate competition.
AOL stock first started losing value at the news that they were not growing fast enough. They subscribed to a model that required them to reach 100% market share, or fail. Beyond 100% is stuff of classic monopoly tales... As a laissez faire fan yourself, you'd be OK with that. To me free market concept is truly an illusion, but let us talk about that one in another tread
Back to the original topic at hand: stealing AP as a criminal offense. I can't see ISPs not loving this idea. I can however see them being active at supporting it. Your libertarian leanings should be against such a thing, as it clearly serves more as an economic regulation than any privacy protection law.
I wish people shared in the name of capitalism. The first kind, not the other one...
The need for growth is really a reflection of the fact that we humans tend to get more and more efficient at doing things (usually due to competition). If the economy isn't stagnant or static but your company is then your company isn't doing as well as it could and the stock will reflect that. As long as we're talking about growth in sectors that are actually growing I don't see a problem. This also only applies to publicly traded companies.
I think ISP's quite like the fact that using someones AP could be criminal. I think they should go fuck themselves and prohibit that themselves if that's what they and their customers want (I know the ISP market in the US is hardly a free market).
Sharing is great and should be encouraged. If it comes at little or no cost to you then it's stupid not to.
This is illegal? You can get arrested? Weird, I had no idea. If people choose to take the option of not using a passwork, thus rendering it unsecure, are they not giving permission?
There are 12 networks visible in my neighbourhood, several using channels that are equal with my wireless network, and severely stronger. The only place for me to use my own network reliably is when I'm within 15 feet of my base-station. I tried to organise them, channelwise, but within a month everything was back to "normal": looks like they as per default reset their routers every fortnight. What am I to do?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Of course we talk to our kids about right and wrong and what is savory and unsavory. And I am proud of their judgment in that regard (my kids are 10 and 12 years old).
We also choose not to have cable television in our house, and restrict general TV viewing. We do get DVDs and watch them with our kids (I just returned my first Netflix DVD on the way to my shop).
Part of parenting is deciding what kinds of media children should and should not have access to. Sex is one thing, but snuff videos and autopsy and war dead photos are even more disturbing. I've seen things on the internet (some linked from here, so we can skip the obligatory Goatse post) that still haunt my subconscious. I don't want my 10 and 12 year old to have that access because some nitwit neighbor has an open network they could access when we're not home and our computers are locked out.
It isn't all of one or all of another.
Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
"We should be arguing: If you don't believe in using the wifi spectrum for free, open communication, then you shouldn't be using it. Pay for a license to use your own block of restricted spectrum."
One: the telecos want to define this in a way that allows them to sell the most services and features. Even if everyone in your router range could get all the connection they need without exceeding your bandwidth allocation, remember unlimited does not mean unlimited anyway, the telecos miss the sales of services to them. This is why they have often taken community based projects to court, though I do not know what their legal argument was specifically. Plus there is a chunk of the population that would agree with this on the philosophical ideal of 'mine, mine, all mine' that asserts authority is gold, greed is good and anything that questions authority or is open or free is a pinko liberal communist plot. I suspect this is about 10-15% of the population, or the same percentage that believes Cheney is a patriot and Bush is the messiah.
"But it seems we have a lot of people here who are profoundly anti-open-communication, and think that people who caught communicating openly should be punished"
Two: if every/anyone can access your wireless router this provides a layer of anonymity that does not allow troublemakers to be hounded down, you know the need to 'save the children' from the druggies, perverts, terrorists and their pinko liberal communist enablers. Plus since many of the same people that distrust a society that allows open anonymity are technical Luddites who would be lost configuring a wireless router and thus they are fearful that they may be confused for some of the above distasteful persons and end up sharing a cell with them.
Even for those who do not fit the descriptions above, the population in general seem either too distracted with their fat lazy lives, too busy pilfering someone else's life, or are simply too stupid to comprehend what is actually happening to our world. I look to the left, to the right or right down the middle and I just don't see anyone in leadership REALLY addressing the slaughter of our liberty and very few in the great masses that have a clue what is happening and just why they should be concerned about it.
When hear someone proclaim themselves as a 'progressive' and I grab my wallet and hide my gun. When I hear someone proclaim themselves as a 'conservative' and I grab my wallet and load my gun. When I hear someone proclaim themselves as a liberal, I roll my eyes and think 'oh really?' but still hope maybe, just maybe this one is for real. When I hear someone proclaim themselves as a patriot my first instinct is to shoot the frackin' fascist idiot while I still can.
If there is anyone I did not piss off here, please let me know how I failed you and I will try to correct my mistake next time.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew