Slashdot Mirror
Passive-Aggressive Wi-Fi Hotspots
the digital nomad writes "If you've had enough of your neighbor stealing your Wi-Fi connection or letting his dog s#%t on your lawn, there is now a better solution than suffering in silence with your brooding anger: leave your neighbor 'a message!' Passive-Aggressive Wi-Fi Hotspots let your networks say what you cannot. And if you're looking for some great name for your Hotspot, make sure to read this post by Gizmodo."
Or you could...you know...actually secure your wifi.
Living With a Nerd
Yeah, some of them are a little bit funny. This would make a good humor post. But it's hard enough to stay on good terms with your neighbors as it is, so consider saying something nice. Like in driving, it's often stupid and dangerous to fight *ssholes by acting like one yourself, thinking you're going to teach them a lesson.
I run an open AP named "nohup", since it's on a UPS and is often the only one still running when the power goes out. (Unfortunately, Verizon FIOS's upstream UPS goes out after 5-10 minutes nowadays -- not the ONI in my house, which can putter along for a few hours, but something upstream of that)
Work with your neighbors to get a wifi mesh going: http://www.olsr.org/
If you still really want to dick with people, at least do something more technically interesting with transparent proxy hacks, such as https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Upside-Down-TernetHowTo or running it through a Swedish Chef filter or the ilk.
that is spelled $#!+
I'd like to see my neighboor get into my wired network.
You Damn kids, get off my wifi!!
Just install some snooper and logger and let the neighbour in, steal the credentials to his bank account, brokerage account, clean them out, and bankrupt him and force his home into foreclosure and buy it yourself using his own money that you stole. Now no pesky neighbour riding free on your WiFi. Instead you come up with some lame network names? Dumb.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Set up your devices with static addresses and set a dhcp scope above the addresses that you need. Then you transparently redirect any http request originating from the dhcp scope to say, www.google.com (or something nastier to be left to your imagination), using the power of iptables. Now, no matter what website the piggy backer tries to visit, he will be greeted with the ubiquitous google.com home page. Watch how quickly the neighbors will learn to leave your network alone.
If your neighbors are assholes holding hands and singing ain't going to happen, it's best just to grow a pair and tell them if you don't have the balls create a login page to your hotspot that plays the recording of you neighbors having sex, or pictures of dog shit from your neighbors dog, just make sure your shit is in-order before you do.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
My favorite is "PirateHacker", which I hope scares the shit out of someone. I've also used "Unknown" and "ImWatchingYou"
HEX
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
My problems with my neighbors were not them stealing my WiFi, but in how they set up their routers... One specifically had a wide open router that for some damned reason my Wife's XP notebook would exclusively connect to, even when the signal was weaker than available preferred networks. I did everything I could to make XP either forget or disregard his network, but it would not. Something in XP (even after re-installation), simply insisted on connecting to his SSID over my secure one. This really pissed me off as the wife would establish VPNs to work, then try to print something to our printer only to find out she was not on our network, and would have to redo significant work, or the connection would just drop because his signal was weak.
Well, needless to say, he was a computer moron. Took the router out of the box, plugged it in, and went. It took about 10 seconds to log onto his device and turn the antenna off, then set a complex admin password. Every couple of days it would be back, so I'd break it again. After a few weeks, i noticed it was a new model, so I repeated the same process on it after XP continued to insist on connecting to it. (and just HER damned notebook, not any of my other 3 XP machines). I talked to him one day while I was mowing the lawn and he complained about the damned thing, and several calls to support, but they couldn't fix it, and apparently at no time ever suggested him to secure it either.
This went on for a while. He apparently rarely used his wireless (he was rarely home), and actually, i think it wasn't even his notebook, but a friend's he had the wireless for, so when I'd turn off his device, it would be a while till it came on. One Saturday though I turned it off, and it came back on quick. So, I did it again, several times in that day. He went out for a while after about the 4th time, and came back an hour later with a blue BestBuy bag with what looked like another new router. This was going to be fun...
By the end of Sunday afternoon, I had that poor bastard back to the store not less than 5 times, each time with a different router. I was practically camped by the family room window waiting to see him come and go, and had his unit shut down within minutes each time he got a new one up and running. Eventually, the wife made me go out and talk to him (honestly, even i was getting bored of the routine, and also noted this wasn't seeming to be coming to an end, he wasn't getting the hints), so I wen out and "inquired" as to the repeated trips to BestBuy. He told me his side of the story...
I said, "Oh, you're probably getting interference from someone else's system in the neighborhood, didn't support tell you that? You should secure your device" Then i offered he pay me $50 to do it for him (BestBuy was charging $149 at that time, and apparently got quite insistent that if he returned anohter device they'd not give him his money back unless they did an onsite install of the next one). he agreed, I secured it, set his SSID to hidden, and didn't have issues again (with him).
I've had other neighbors who were complete morons too. One apparently went around telling everyone else to hard set their access points to channel 2, since it was statistically the clearest channel. (I have NO idea where he got that one). It didn't phase me, but every one of them had issues... This only caused me issues because all their damned devices were only seeing my router, with all the other interference, and although it was secure, my log files occasionally filled up with people trying and failing to log on. Another convinced all the people in an apartment complex to pay him for Internet access, and set himself up as a mini ISP. Well, besides it being a huge hassle, as 15 people trying to hit his AP at once caused issues for sure, apparently one of them called support and spilled the beans. My, not being a dumb ass, maintained my own connection on a secure router, however, i had a HELL of a time proving to TWC that I was not the one sharing my conn
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Finally, a fun use for my wifi card's VAP functionality =D.
It's questionably vulgar. And I know all my neighbors are seeing this.
The best thing about the name was when my girlfriends mother stayed over for vacation. She brought her laptop and asked for the name of our WiFi network. My girlfriend said it to her in a mumbling embarrassed tone.
Well, nohup pretty much means "never hangup" so I've more or less rickroll'd them already.
"And that creating a "guest" open network was limited only to the most expensive and corporate models that had multiple SSID and radio support (secure or nothing configuration)? "
Multiple SSID
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
SSIDs are up to 32 characters long and may contain any 8-bit character you want. There is no need to CamelCase or justconcatenateitall. If you're going to be passive-aggressive instead of (or in addition to) simply securing your access point, at least make your message readable. IMHO, anyone offering OR using unsecured wireless LANs without proper encryption on top gets what they deserve.
In an ideal world, you could freely share it. In the real world, it just opens up yourself to litigation if someone does something illegal over your network. After all, from the outside view it's your IP from which the illegal stuff originated.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
On of the APs local to me is called "IWillSniffYourPackets" or some such (I'm not at home right now to check). For the time that my SSID was not hidden (for some reason the old man's laptop refused to connect to the AP if the name wasn't visible, a problem that went away when the AP died and was replaced) I used "ReceptionError" figuring people would bypass a secured AP with a name that implied it wouldn't work in favour of the unsecured one called "Netgear" that was in the vicinity.
ifYouPasswordProtectYourNetworkIllStopUsingYourInternet
By that reasoning, if you leave your front door open, and somebody actually wanders in and takes something, they cannot be charged with theft.
Nope. Not the way it works.
Similarly, using another person's computer resources without explicit permission to do so, even if those resources appear to be freely available, is still illegal.
Whether or not a person who leaves his computer open in such a way may appear to deserve to be inviting such activity is as irrelevant as the the fact that they make consumer vehicles that go over a hundred miles an hour could be perceived as inviting people to exceed the speed limit.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
some of these screenshotes were made while beeing connected to the not open "passive-agressive" networks...
bickerdyke
This is funny only because I once had a conversation with someone using SSID. It was back and forth quips everyday about how my house is better than theirs and so on and so forth.. I realized how incredibly interesting it was to have a "conversation" with SSIDs and how incredibly geeky it was..
you know you can fry stuff putting things into things that dont like the things you put into it...
there is now a better solution than suffering in silence
This is the better solution!? Who the hell that's on /. doesn't know how to name their hotspot!?
Do you see the part of your post that concerns theft?
Using an unsecured wifi is more like depositing mail in their unlocked mailbox to be picked up by the postman. (Not stealing their mail)
--why?
We've seen this before, ways to push people away from your WiFi without actually securing it. But previously we had creative things to do with the users, like reversing their pages or directing everything to pictures of kittens. This isn't anywhere nearly as inspired.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
In the real world, it just opens up yourself to litigation if someone does something illegal over your network.
I suppose you have one, single, real-world example where this has actually happened? I mean, you wouldn't just be throwing out frightening hypotheticals, would you?
That depends entirely on your definition of "permission". I would say an open AP is more like an "open house" sign on the front lawn, not just an open door.
Their wireless hot-spot celebrates "Toby's" partying habits with this SSID: "Toby has a drinking problem"
Similarly, using another person's computer resources without explicit permission to do so, even if those resources appear to be freely available, is still illegal.
However, when they advertise the SSID of their open wifi, and respond to your request by giving you an IP and handling your traffic, it's a completely different matter.
They offer to handle your traffic, and when actually requested to do so, they comply. They don't have to do any of that if they don't want to. It's easy to lock wifi. It's easy not to advertise your SSID. It's a bit harder but still quite doable to not give them an IP, or give them an IP and then fuck with their traffic.
But you neglect the fact that there is a protocol.
By publishing the ESSID, you invite other to connect to your network.
There is no need to publish an ESSID, and you could always lock the network.
If you leave the door open, and put a sign outside that says "come in", people might come to your house. For example, that's how retail works, and that's why we don't put "come in" signs at our front doors.
If I'm feeling like a real jerk, I'll name my SSID to goatsenet and forward google.com to goatse, msn to lemonparty and so on. If enough people do this, in the future, simply naming your network goatsenet will be deterrent enough.
I would expect that the most obvious Wi-Fi networks to hop onto are those named "linksys," "netgear," "d-link," etc. If someone knows enough to rename their Wi-Fi network, then theoretically, they should also know how to set up even just a little bit of security. Seriously, even though WEP, WPA, etc. are not perfect, it's a lot better than no security at all.
While in general I agree with you, I don't think it's quite that crystal clear. Let's suppose that the person with the internet subscription and his neighbor are both technologically clueless. Person A buys a device which, by default, allows anyone within range internet access (a wireless router). Person B buys a device which, by default, connects to the closest available network (a Windows computer). Both these devices are fully legal. Can you really say that Person B is stealing when he turns on his computer and discovers he has internet access? Maybe he doesn't even realize that you have to pay for such things. He could be a complete moron. The point is, all he did was turn on his computer and use its native features. The other reason the theft analogy breaks down is that in most cases, the person with the internet subscription does not suffer any losses from the freeloader, unless he's downloading tons of data. Except for that case, it's more akin to somebody using your driveway when you're out of town. Is that really stealing? Trespassing seems a more appropriate analogy.
By your reasoning, if you leave your radio on so loud that the neighbours can listen to your music without having to pay for a radio themselves, then that means they're stealing.
Something tell me that's not how it works either.
May the Maths Be with you!
One where I live is called "NotYourNetwork". Not quite as good as these, but it always amused me.
By that reasoning, if you leave your front door open, and somebody actually wanders in and takes something, they cannot be charged with theft.
Nope. Not the way it works.
Similarly, using another person's computer resources without explicit permission to do so, even if those resources appear to be freely available, is still illegal.
Whether or not a person who leaves his computer open in such a way may appear to deserve to be inviting such activity is as irrelevant as the the fact that they make consumer vehicles that go over a hundred miles an hour could be perceived as inviting people to exceed the speed limit.
But considering that unsecured Wi-Fi stations basically send out invitations to nearby electronics, I don't think it only appears to invite activity.
If you invite some passerby to your home and he utilises your couch and watches your tv, it's not illegal, unless you say that the person must not do it
It is what it is.
"Windows is now connecting to the 'Psychic Friends' network."
Makes me smile, every time.
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
As an aside, while I think your post is a little ridiculous :), flamebait it most certainly is not...
No, it's not illegal, nor should it be.
Well, you might be right IF it was not possible to accidentally do this. For about a year, my next door neighbor and I were stealing from each other. My wife had blocked our wifi ap in the laptop setup somehow (she doesn't know) and was leaching off the neighbor. When her laptop stopped working, I investigated. Found that it was not set to log to our own AP, and further found that a secondary AP of ours was in a default state, that is enabled and unsecure. Guess who was logged into it? The same neighbor who's AP her laptop had been using till he secured it. My best guess is that it had been that way for months. No party involved walked through any door, nor did we actively initiate picking up anything. There was no intent to steal, share, or otherwise deprive anyone of anything, but it happened just the same. In this case, no harm no foul. Yes, I look at the configs now and then. A recent storm reset the vonage router and it defaulted to enabled and secure but that caused interference with the AP I use so it was not left for anyone to try using it. Yes, I have UPS, so don't need obvious suggestions. The point is most equipment is set to log in anywhere it can and will happily do so without reporting where that is. Calling it theft is like accusing passersby of using images of your house without permission because they have stored a memory of their journey in their head.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
"Passive-aggressive" is a catch-phrase that has been broadened in pop psychology, in part because the Internet has permitted so many more avoidant behaviors and people need a name for it and use the one that has enjoyed more use in the popular (primarily entertainment) media.
You will find this funny.
I found a funny one while sitting at a Starbucks.. DEATH STAR PEW PEW.. Was planning to use my free two hours on the att node, but what the heck? Wide open, and no two hour limit... Of course, I always have my OpenVPN connection to my home network up and use the squid proxy there to keep me protected...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
What about hogging bandwidth? I know someone who downloaded a Kubuntu install dvd using his neighbor's wifi. While I agree with you in general it's a fine line.
I do not have a sig. You are hallucinating.
but aren't these people with open wifi actually advertising the fact, inviting you to use it, and telling you how to do it too?
I mean, that's what *I* do with my wifi. How else can I do it without people thinking that they can't without breaking the law?
Max.
SSIDs in my building:
"Grizzlymuff" ....and yes, the girl in 2b is incredibly hot, I'm sure that's why someone chose to send the entire building (and surrounding bldg's) that incredibly classy message.
"linksys"
"hey 2b I wanna jizz on yr face"
"NDBinternet"
I think this is really funny - because what could anybody do about it?
I wonder if there is anything someone could put in their SSID that would actually cause people to call the police? I mean, obvious things like endorsing blowing up federal bldgs or child abuse might, but then how would they find it? - I mean, obviously it could be done, but would they really do it, just over an SSID - and would they actually try to charge someone?
LimitedConnectivity Scares most away...
The SSID of my unsecured 'guest' hotspot (for friends' cell phone and such) has be called 'keystroke_logger_enabled" for years.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Not yet, but it's just a matter of time. It's already been ruled that illicit traffic going to your IP is probable cause for a search, whether or not you have an open AP.
Now I don't know about you, but having a search warrant against me, having my computers confiscated, and being in the news as a suspected child pornographer is pretty damn bad, even if I'm never charged. The chances of that are very small, but the consequences so bad that it adds up to a considerable risk.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Trouble with your analogy is that wifi routers default to being relatively secure these days. you would be hard pressed to buy a router within the last few years that wasnt secure by default.
If the owner has made his router open its practically certain that it was intentional.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Dear neighbor, Thanks for leaving your network unsecured for so many years. I've enjoyed not paying for internet for some time now, and even though you created an ssid that is very funny, I'm still going to use it.....
It's very convenient that you left out this little snippet of detail:
Now, granted, there are obvious flaws with this ruling. But the case was *not* ruled the way it was strictly because it rejected his reasoning that the WAP was open therefore it wasn't him. They ruled that way because they didn't buy his reasoning *combined* with the fact that he had child porn in his frickin' room.
I completely disagree. The chances aren't just small. They're miniscule. Open WAPs have been running for, what, a decade now? And in that entire time, you've managed to find a single case which is kinda sorta troubling. IMHO, that's just not worth worrying about. Heck, by this logic, I should put metal shutters on all the doors of my home and lock it down like a prison. After all, someone could just as easily break into my home and use my PC to download child porn, right? But I don't, because the odds are so fantastically low that it's not worth the inconvenience to protect myself from this "threat".
How many people own routers from the last few years vs. older routers.
How many people receive their routers from their ISP and never touch the configuration.
Mine's 7JerksAndASquirt, and it's open. It's paid for by my government job, so I figured it's a good way to give back to the little people. If you're ever in the V5R6E6 postal code of Vancouver, Canada, and you need some network connectivity, be my guest.
Linksys N Router on Shaw's 25Mbps connection.
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
Not as funny as you might think, it could also mean Fo' Obama (For Obama) to some people.
Now, granted, there are obvious flaws with this ruling. But the case was *not* ruled the way it was strictly because it rejected his reasoning that the WAP was open therefore it wasn't him. They ruled that way because they didn't buy his reasoning *combined* with the fact that he had child porn in his frickin' room.
I left out that detail because it's irrelevant. They wouldn't have found the CDs with child porn on them without the warrant in the first place. You can't use evidence obtained from a warrant to provide probable cause for the warrant in the first place. The only evidence you can consider is that which you have before the warrant is issued.
The only evidence they had that would amount to probable cause is illicit traffic going to his IP. If you have illicit traffic going to your IP, that is probable cause for a search, whether you initiated the traffic or not.
Heck, by this logic, I should put metal shutters on all the doors of my home and lock it down like a prison. After all, someone could just as easily break into my home and use my PC to download child porn, right?
Not at all. Fortifying your home comes with significant cost. Securing your wifi comes with no cost at all. Someone breaking into your home is a lot more likely to be detected, so it's a lot less likely to be attempted. I don't think the risk benefit analysis works out the same.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That's not how I actually spelled it...
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
The only evidence they had that would amount to probable cause is illicit traffic going to his IP. If you have illicit traffic going to your IP, that is probable cause for a search, whether you initiated the traffic or not.
Right. So they get a warrant, run a search, and find nothing. Ohnoes, what a hardship. Meanwhile, the chances of this happening are probably lower than being struck by lightening. So why concern yourself with it?
Not at all. Fortifying your home comes with significant cost. Securing your wifi comes with no cost at all. Someone breaking into your home is a lot more likely to be detected, so it's a lot less likely to be attempted. I don't think the risk benefit analysis works out the same.
Personally, I consider time and inconvenience a cost. I also feel that leaving my WAP open is a worthwhile service to provide others, and that removing that service is also a cost, specifically to my local neighbourhood.
But you're correct, my analogy isn't perfect. But it wasn't meant to be. The point is to illustrate that the percentage chance of someone using your WAP to download child porn is so fantastically low that it's simply not worth being concerned about. That same individual, of which there are very few, is *far* more likely to download said materials at, say, a coffee shop or a library, or they'll use Tor, or Freenet, or a myriad other options for anonymous internet browsing, than they are to wardrive down your street and piggyback on your connection. It's just not worth worrying about.
I suggest using an email as SSID and chat all night long with your awake neighbour. ... unless you live surrounded by jerks.
Great way to make friends
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
and further found that a secondary AP of ours was in a default state, that is enabled and unsecure.
Please hand in your geek card and 6 digit /. ID on your way out the door please.
Thank you.
As an aside, I actually think the risk of your traffic being sniffed on your open WAP is far more of a concern than the whole child-porn boogeyman. Of course, that risk can be mitigated with proper precautions and the understanding that your WAP is *not* a secure connection if it's open. But it's still an issue, and I don't think most people really realize it.
There is no need to publish an ESSID, and you could always lock the network.
Not so. I added an Airport Express to my wireless network served by a Netgear WiFi DSL Router. The Airport Express would not connect to the network unless the router's SSID was being broadcast.
Further, the router would not allow me to configure the Airport Express' MAC address as an authorized device, rejecting it as invalid, so I'm prevented from locking down to only known authorized MACs.
For a long time before this, I couldn't even get the Netgear to work with WPA/WPA2 unless I also enabled WEP on the primary interface. I've since discovered I only can't use WPA/WPA2 on the primary but can do it on the secondary and disable the primary (it can serve four SSIDs).
And now it's refusing to let my wired desktop computer access the Internet, interferes with it trying to communicate to other devices on my LAN, and won't let me update the router's firmware.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Honestly, it sounds like you need a new router.
Yeah, I also had a lot of problems with Airport Extreme not broadcasting the SSID. In normal situations, I would turn that feature off, but neither Ubuntu 8.10 nor Vista would connect unless the SSID was broadcast and set to a specific channel (I forget which one) when using WPA2. Since it isn't as easy as getting a new router (long story), I just decided to leave it on broadcast. WPA2 should be enough in most home situations anyway.
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
I realize this could vary depending on where you live, but at least in most places, it's not illegal to have an offensive SSID. In fact, having an offensive SSID is kind of the point of TFA.
Racially abusive? WTF is that? Racially offensive would make sense. Again, at least in most places it's not illegal (and shouldn't be anywhere, IMO) to have a racially offensive SSID. Of course, it's not smart, either. I don't recommend SSIDs that might get you beaten up. Plus, if you're going to set out to offend someone, you should offend based on behavior. A person's race is not good or bad, it just is. Behavior is good or bad.
Of course, at the rate the US is going, I expect "asshole" to become a protected class any day now, with people able to claim discrimination if won't have anything to do with them because they're assholes.
It's fun renaming people's hotspots when they leave them open and defaulted. I renamed my libtard neighbor's wifi "FOBAMA".
Maybe he thought he could trust his neighbors. Apparently he was right until you proved him wrong. He's not getting the major negative light here.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Sorry, that's bullshit. Try actually reading the act, rather than just reading scare stories on Slashdot or third-hand accounts:
Given your average open WAP owner isn't providing "commercial mobile service", nor is a "common carrier for hire", and is actually explicitly exempt from the act, it's blatantly obvious that CALEA doesn't apply to them.
How many people own routers from the last few years vs. older routers.
How many people receive their routers from their ISP and never touch the configuration.
A lot. When we switched ISPs (one company was offering a deal for apartments) I was at work when the guy came in. My roommate said he "plugged in some boxes and left". (As per my instructions/orders/threats, my roommate also kept him from touching my stuff. No, I don't need your ISP-branded firewall/wireless assistant/support program/home page on my XP partition, thanks and go to Hell.) So I hooked (wired) to the router and looked. Open wireless.
Once that was fixed I remembered the deal for apartments. So I fired up my laptop and looked. There was fifteen new open wireless points (and three secured), all named almost the same.
We should all review the true meaning of passive-aggressiveness. The article in question does not describe this behavior at all. Please read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_behavior
Kriston
#202477 +(7983)- [X]
(Mootar) morons.
(Mootar) these people who live in my apartment complex are connected to my wireless
(Mootar) they must think they're super-cool hackers by breaking into my completely unsecure network
(Mootar) unfortunatly, the connection works both ways
(Mootar) long story short, they now have loads of horse porn on their computer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Yeah. I was rather disappointed with the story. I thought this site was supposed to be "News For Nerds", not "News For People Who Just Discovered How to Change The SSID Late Last Year".
:).
There's just so much stuff you could do when someone is using a network under your control, and not using secure connections for everything (which is likely for most people).
You could change lots of advert pictures/banners (many years ago, I did that for April Fool's day, no I didn't get fired, hey I saved the company some bandwidth - and back then IIRC the whole company was sharing dial-up internet or something really slow).
You could insert a link to a javascript program that causes something animated to move about on the screen. Doesn't have to be as flashy as what you see on facebook when you use the konami code.
Or even embed scary/strange noises, depending on what time/date it is
Instead the story is about changing SSIDs...
Using an unsecured wifi is more like depositing mail in their unlocked mailbox to be picked up by the postman. (Not stealing their mail)
Still stupid. Because if the owner of the mailbox takes your mail out, reads it, then throws it away before it gets sent you've got no one else to blame but yourself.
The person who owns the wifi owns you and you put yourself at the mercy of that person. There is plenty of instructions on how to do just that ( as was previously pointed out with Upside-Down-Ternet ). So, in regards to the stance "If you leave it open and people use it, that's not stealing.", my reply is this: "If you give them your online bank credentials and they clean out your accounts, that's not stealing either."
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
Mine was "TeenLesbianOrgy" for awhile. Then I changed it to "Hey Baby, Wanna Fuck?"
It's something more tame now.
We did try other methods. messing with his router was about a last resort. He was offered help through the HOA securing it otherwise, and I tried to approach him and he flipped me off. (we had battles over his yard maintenance and parking on the street issues previously with the HOA and him, which he blamed on me, when in reality the complaints came from the Mexicans next door to him).
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
So they get a warrant, run a search, and find nothing. Ohnoes, what a hardship
Right, and meanwhile I have no access to any of my computers. My neighbors are gossiping, word could get back to my employer who might not want to have a suspected child pornographer on his payroll, etc, etc. The costs of a false allegation of anything remotely related to child sexual abuse are huge. Nobody cares that you were never even charged. Where there's smoke there's fire, right? That's how most people think.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I dunno, I let other people use my Wi-Fi, I just put myself in their place ...
I think of encryption as 'dirty' and 'homosexual'.
I can imagine myself going over to my firend's and if when I try to connect, to play some starcraft, it asks me for a password, I think I would straight-murder his family. Honest
4 - A robot may not masturbate, except where such action would conflict with the Second Law.
Local guy has that. I thought it was amusing, and not offensive.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well, of course, YMMV, following the analogy, I'm sure you could buy doors that won't shut, or won't lock.
But then again your neighbors don't get to choose the station either.
Well, "open" sort of.
Its easy enough to secure it, using either TKIP or RADIUS authentication and provide access to my kids laptops, netbooks, DSi, phones, etc. but it's becoming a pain.
I'm really thinking of just setting up a captive portal for them to use with their home network credentials. At least that will take care of their web use.
But I wonder if I should make it more open for guests that stop by every so often. I don't really want to set up a guest account, with a password that doesn't change, or changes so frequently that it defeats the purpose of a "guest" account. Frankly, I'm not worried so much about the neighbors stealing wifi, but about some objectionable content they might get via my network connection -- think kiddie porn. (Yes, authentication without site blocking doesn't solve that, but I monitor the use by people that have home network credentials (my kids).)
The idea is that when a friend pops over he should just be able to surf on his phone or make VoIP calls without complicated setup or passwords. If the neighbors get a bit of free bandwidth, as long as they don't hog it, I really wouldn't mind. I'm leaning toward a self-subscribing captive portal with verification by cell phone text message so I can at least get a phone number that I can match to IP logs if necessary on the assumption that so long as I don't store any questionable content, and log access, I should be relatively safe from prosecution (This may be a naive assumption.) My friends all have cell phones, and I don't care if the neighbors don't.
In Liberty, Rene
Using an unsecured wifi is more like depositing mail in their unlocked mailbox to be picked up by the postman. (Not stealing their mail)
...so you're pushing the person closer to their cap without them even knowing about it, so you could push them in to receiving additional charges and costs incurred. It'd be like running an extension cord out their window and using their electricity to power your laptop, if power had usage caps instead of per-watt charges, which it doesn't. They're charged for what you're using if you use a completely excessive amount of bandwidth.
So in other words, it's Quantum theft. In all seriousness though, I understand that if done excessively, using someone's unsecured Wifi could cause them problems, either by making them exceed their bandwidth caps or by negatively impacting their service while you are using it. However you seem to be making an all-or-nothing thing out of this in that since you *could* cause them problems, then the practice is intrinsically wrong. I see no problem with it if your usage is not excessive.
Which "real world" are you referring to?
Is it the one in the U.K. : http://mobiletechmob.com/2009/11/30/pub-owner-in-uk-being-fined-13k-for-copyright-infringement-over-open-wifi/
Is it the one in Germany: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080717/1558191712.shtml
Is it the one in the United States: http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20091109/UPDATES01/91109015
So, there are three examples that fulfill you're request. Open WiFi + legal repercussions to the owner after "something illegal" was done using that access.
Now what?
Oh how I hate the your / you're mistaken I just made. :::bonk bonk::::
Well, the UK is fucked, we all know that. :) The second case wasn't over back in 2008. Do you know what the current state of that case is? And the third one... shit, the third one isn't even comparable. That was a *county-run system*. And, at least as far as I can tell, the county wasn't found liable by a court or anything. My reading is that they *chose* to shut the system down after some jackasses used it to break the law.
I have a 2 tier wep / wpa2 tkip setup that I'd love to do this on the wep side. The wep is actually a "Guest" router for friends and family. The wpa2 side is for my work laptop, the zune, and the netflix box.
I know some kid has been on my network before, because his dad TOLD ME! But it wasn't secure then (not that wep is) it would be fun to set up something like this, or proxy to a page containing the whole web, three pages of it. The "allowed" web pages could be a rickroll, slashdot, and my website only.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
I'm sure your neighbours would LOVE to see LOLcats instead of the pictures they actually wanted.
Of course, a DNS redirect and a harsh notice on your server wouldn't go amiss.
My new personal goal is to get all of my neighbors to change their SSIDs to "we can hear you having sex" or something similar.
Open your wifi a couple days before you go on vacation and set squid to redirect all the "bad" sites to some scary warning page you made up. Then immediately disconnect.
The warning page will show your neighbour's lan address, but your public IP and your street address, together with some severe warnings.
Two days later, have some friends drag you out of the house into a dark car. For effect they can also carry out an old computer monitor. When you return two weeks later, look angrily at your neighbor.
It takes no effort beyond common courtesy for somebody to note that "hey, that internet connection isn't one I paid for... maybe I should make sure I'm really allowed to use it before I make any assumptions".
But then, I think it's rude to assume that just because I see something that just looks free for the taking, it must be... at least without any explicit signage to that effect (such as, in the case of wifi, a hotspot named "Free Public WiFi", or something similar).
It takes a sense of entitlement to assume that just because one can, also means it's acceptable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
An AP labelled "Free WiFi" or "Public Internet" is like an open house sign on the front lawn. An unencrypted AP that isn't so labeled is far more likely indicative of somebody who doesn't know how to secure their connection more than an actual open invitation for anybody else to utilize it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I can see your view and I appreciate it [*]. However, I think there is one fundamental difference: I think there should be explicit(ish) indication of the hotspot not being free. Both giving a name to the hotspot and securing it is trivial. Even the cheapest WLAN AP's I've seen come with instructions on how to do it. Some (most?) have the instructions also on a separate sheet or on the cover of the manual.
Then again, I'm not talking about constant use. In that case I think it would be a good idea to find out (if possible) that usage is approved by the owner of the hotspot. If I had an open hotspot, I wouldn't mind people checking their e-mails and such with it without asking me about it.
[*] without explicit signage of it being free [**]
[**] actually, quite the opposite, as "Comments are owned by the Poster."
It is what it is.
A friend of mine who lives in an apartment complex named his network "Bring apartment 6A a sandwich, no mayo". Nobody's delivered one to him yet.
It doesn't really matter what I call it. It's what the law calls it. At least where I live.
The Criminal Code of Canada explicitly disallows the use of computer facilities that one is not supposed to (sec 342.1), and whether or not one is "supposed to" is determined by the owner of those facilities, and not by whether or not one has the ability to use them. You might get off if you could show that usage was inadvertent, but you'd better be able to back that claim up.
That said, if no harm is done, and it is a first offense, there may be no real legal consequences beyond an official warning, and that's if it does get as far as court.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'