Well, Otter, I've got to say congratulations; you're the first person on the other side of this argument that I've seen make a reasonable point that might hold up. And I read the first/. discussion too.
The point I'm congratulating is the confrontation argument. If the owner of the AP actually came out and told the leech to get off his network, then yes, I'd agree that the leech needs to leave or face these felony charges.
That said, my reading of TFA does not suggest that this happened in this case. TFA says Dinon (the AP owner) approached close enough to the vehicle to see Smith (the leech) close his laptop. But it does not say that Dinon actually spoke to Smith at any point, or told him to quit using the network.
Now, if you want to say it was obvious from Dinon's actions that Smith wasn't welcome, we get into muddy water. But I don't think that's enough...imagine the case where somebody shoots somebody knocking on his door without any warning and then says "well, he could see I was lookin' at him mean like."
The other half of your point is not as meritous. The AC who has already replied to you says it about as well as I could: the nerd logic is the logic that matters when we're talking about networking policy. If I can't trust the network's automatic authorization, then I also can't connect to google on port 80 without permission. The entire Internet requires that we defer the jobs of authorization and authentication to automatic processes, and the owner of a wide-open AP is doing just that.
The analogy is an open wallet on a restaurant table. I'd say that's pretty open. It does broadcast that it's open, using visible light. The "fucking thing is offering free money!!!!!" The point is that the user did not intend it to be open, but it is.
Just one more time, this is not the same. The "broadcasting using visible light" business is horseshit; that broadcast is more analogous to how an AP still unintentionally announces its presence even if it isn't broadcasting the SSID. The difference is in one case you have to catch network traffic and look for the network information in it, whereas in the broadcasting-SSID case the device is actively telling all comers that it is there and available. It's the difference between a wallet on a table, which you can see....and a wallet on a table with a sign next to it saying "go ahead and use the credit cards." And unless it has that sign on it, it's not "offering free money." But an AP is actively offering network access. You make a request, it answers yes. That's authorization.
I'm really boggled by the fact that some of you can't get your heads wrapped around this. It's simple; AP says "I'm here and public" (broadcasts its SSID), user says "Can I get a network address?" (DHCP request), and AP says "Sure, use this one" (DHCP lease). That's just exactly like you walking up to this guy in the restaraunt and saying "Hey, I see you've got a wallet open there; can I use your credit card?" and the guy saying "yeah, no problem."
I thought the post about asking the owner was a good idea.
Are you even reading these posts? You do ask the owner....it's called a "DHCP request" for a reason. You ask it for an IP, and if it gives you one, it has authorized you to be on the network. Come on now...this is really simple.
Christ driving around to see what doors stupid ppl have left open should not be a crime. If I drive around my neighborhood and look at how many dumb ppl have left their front door wide open should I be arrested. Breaking in is one thing but just looking is another.
That's a horrible analogy. Because it is and should be illegal to walk into somebody's house without permission, even if the door is open.
But that's not what an AP setup like this is like. It's not just "open"...it's actively inviting people to use its access. It's broadcasting an SSID, and then answering DHCP requests by giving out leases. So, using an AP that was configured like the one in this case is more like driving around looking for signs that say "keg party down the street" then finding the house that says "keg party" on the door, then knocking, and having the door answered by somebody who says "come on in" and hands you a cup for the keg.
This does not hold if the AP is not broadcasting its SSID and using DHCP. If you go sniff the network and setup a static address on it, you've probably done so without permission. But when the system advertises its existence and offers you an IP when you ask, you have just been authorized to use the network.
First, good points on the McDonald's case. I hate it when people start bitching about that one. She had 3rd degree burns on her fucking vagina for christ's sake. And it was 4 million if I remember right, which is a perfectly reasonable amount of punitive damages when the defendant is as huge as McDonald's and thus won't be punished by a smaller verdict.
However, then you slip into pure ignorance with this:
Yeah, it's the rape victim's fault for dressing like that, she had it coming! An open door is *not* an invitation, no matter how much you might want what's inside.
Read the 10 posts above that show why an "open door" is not analogous to this...the rape analogy is immeasurably worse. Acess points setup like this one actively broadcast invitations. Read above for the keg party analogy. Or consider a rape case where the "victim" actually said in her testimony that she said out loud "please have sex with me." and then never told the "rapist" to stop.
What if I'm at a restaurant, and I leave my wallet on the table while I'm using the restroom... am I letting you have access to my credit cards or am I too stupid to conceal my wallet? How can you differentiate? You can't, so you'd just take my wallet without asking?
GODDAMMIT! How many of you people have to make these absolutely banal unlike analogies!? For this to be the same, your wallet would have to somehow be broadcasting that it is there and available, and would have to somehow have to be actively authorizing all users to sign for the credit cards. This fucking thing is offering IP addresses!!!!
Please specify whether you are a lawyer or not next time. You have to.
Actually, I don't have to.
We depend on the law advice on slashdot; you know that.
Sorry to hear that. Very naive of you. Even if someone tells you that he/she is a lawyer, and gives you advice on slashdot, it is no substitute for hiring one.
If you preface your statement with IANAL, I know you're some idiot with as much knowledge of the law as the packing material I just threw away.
Then you don't "know" much.
If you instead qualify your statement with IAAL, I'll listen to your legal advice, quietly cuss you out for being a snake with no morals, and go about my day (hopefully more informed though).
Just digging the hole deeper. Not only are you apparently completely unaware that there are non-lawyers with a great deal of legal knowledge, you also believe that all lawyers are "snakes with no morals." Please fuck off.
Not at all. If the network had WEP (or any other protection enabled) and the admin had handed out the password, then your keys analogy would be the same. Since there was NO protection on the network no key was handed out, or stolen, to provide access; hell there was no door for the key to go in.
Perhaps there was no door....but there was a banner out in the street that said "open doorway over here" (SSID broadcast) and a guy standing in the foyer (DHCP server) stamping hands (assigning IPs) for the keg party.
That's the big point here. The AP is not a passive device. It's actively granting people access and advertising that it will.
I agree. But the reporter (whose number is at the bottom of the article) didn't know who the defense lawyer was except to say he was a public defender. Obviously, that suggests shoddy reporting, but more importantly, it makes the prosecutor's office the most reasonable place to try to get that number. I've since called the reporter back to try to get the case number, but got voicemail and haven't received a return call.
In any case, despite my agreement that the defense lawyer should be made aware, you clearly don't recognize the decision powers available to a prosecutor. Should one adequately explain this situation to him, he can very easily decide not to bring the charges. And he can issue a press release if he likes to set things straight so that a bunch of people don't start bringing up this frivolous crap and wasting city/county resources. Let me tell you, calling the prosecutor's office and being nice/polite and informative about a situation for which charges have been brought is frequently very productive.
The problem with your logic is there's no way to put up a sign that says "Come on in" with WIFI.
Actually, there is. It's called broadcasting your SSID, using no authentication, and offering DHCP leases without restriction. That combination quite literally invites everyone onto the network.
And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!
Sorry, but this analogy doesn't even begin to hold water. Closer would be:
And if you leave your front door standing open with a sign on it saying "please come in, party inside" and signs all the way down your block saying "party this way, door open, come on in." you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter.
And I'd agree with that. Don't forget, these broadcasts are public. They aren't limited to his property, and his AP is granting access. His DHCP request is like him knocking on the door. The AP granting the lease is like you opening the door and saying "come on in." If his AP had been locked down, it would be like you saying "get off my property."
Come one folks, just because you easily CAN do something doesn't mean it's ethical or right. I think that if you use somebody's network, it limits their own bandwidth, doesn't it? If not, then I'd agree it should not be illegal. But if so, then you are stealing from them.
This fails the same logic test. Yes, it limits their bandwidth. And they are specifically allowing that behavior by giving you an IP address. If this was a static network the question would be slightly more up in the air, but the AP gave them the address and allowed them unrestricted network access. That's like having the sign on the door say "free punch and cookies inside in the party." You're trying to say this guy was stealing punch.
I know I'm going to get flamed/modded down, but somebody has to say this.
Well, I guess if somebody has to say some really poorly though-out garbage, then ok, it might as well be you.
Well, I need the case number on this. Because the prosecutor's office says they have too many Benjamin Smiths, and apparently can't add "the third" or the arrest date to their query. But I'm definitely trying to find out who the public defender is in this case so I can suggest he use an argument based on the fact that the AP owner was distributing network access freely over public airwaves, and thus was authorizing access.
If anybody else wants to take a crack at it, the prosecutor's phone number is 727-464-6221.
The prosecuter's office that is handling this case can be reached at 727-464-6221.
I suggest we let them know that if you broadcast an SSID into the public airwaves and then grant DHCP leases across it you are authorizing access to your network.
This is ridiculous. Listen to this lady from an ISP:
"It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft," said Kena Lewis, spokeswoman for Bright House Networks in Orlando. "Just because a crime may be undetectable doesn't make it right."
No different? Is this taken out of context, and she's faulting the owner of the AP? Because that's the only way that it's even remotely the same, and then it depends on the terms of service of the ISP. The MS EULA prohibits you from using the software if you haven't legally acquired it, and prohibits the user from redistributing. So, no matter whether you are the sharer or sharee, you're violating the agreement...and you had to view and agree to the agreement to put the software on. In this case, the ISP's TOS is only agreed to by the customer. So, the person using the access has no obligations to that ISP. The person putting up an unsecured AP may well be in violation, but that's a different issue.
I can't tell whether the reporter should be blamed for using the quote out of context, or whether the ISP spokeswoman should be blamed for bullshitting. But one way or another, that's bullshit.
The whole tone of this article is dead wrong. The reporter is just taking what he's handfed by the cops. Take this for example:
In another Florida case, a man in an apartment complex used a neighbor's Wi-Fi to access bank information and pay for pornography sites.
So, wait.....which part of this is wrong? So the guy is into porn? Jesus, have him shot! Note that it doesn't say he was accessing other people's banking information. The whole story just implies misconduct by making the guy who got arrested out to be some peeping-tom type hanging out in the yard and acting suspicious, and making everybody else who has hung out on a wifi network (me and probably 70% of the rest of us here included of course) lumped in as a bad guy because this is obviously some kind of foul play. Never mind the fact that they are broadcasting access to their fucking network on our public airwaves!
Also, the poor guy admitted to using the connection too (unauthorized access to a computer network, which is a third degree felony according to the article).
First, whether he admitted it is not terribly important by the time police have him and the laptop in their possession. The AP knows the MAC address used to connect.
Second, and far more importantly, this is not unauthorized access. The AP authorized the access by granting his laptop a DHCP lease, and the owner of the AP set it up to do just that. I'd like to know some addresses I can email down there to send a quick explanation of how that works. Because this is absolute bullshit.
Actually, they said Southerners, not Americans. And they only claimed that they were less well-trained than their Ontario counterparts.
This may seem like a semantic difference on the surface, but it does bear some extremely important distinctions. Specifically, the way you put it, the blame falls on the American worker, who is simply "stupid." He lacks natural mental ability. The way I put it, it falls where it should, on our (poor) education and job training systems. He lacks a social system that can make him an effective worker as it should. And your way ignores the vast differences in training/education within our country; I dare say Toyota would not level these accusations at New York or Washington state (or probably most of the others...these are just quick examples). But, since those states aren't hurting for employment the way the South is, they weren't offering Toyota hundreds of millions of free dollars the way the Southern states (and Ontario!) were, which is to say they weren't even part of the question.
Point is, while there are some issues with education (which in parts of the states are pretty serious), Americans aren't and never were stupid...you don't get to where we are that way. As (Frenchman) Captain Renault says in Casablanca to the Nazi major making the same mistake: "We musn't underestimate American blundering; I was with them when they blundered into Berlin in 1918."
The woman is suing the government for depriving her of her ability to make an income in her current profession.
Bullshit.
Changing the course of a celestial body in no way deprives this person of her livelihood. She's supposed to read the movements of the stars, right? Ok, so this was one of them. We, humans, products of the universe, make changes to it just like stars and planets exert their own forces on comets. An astrologer should be reading the movements, not complaining about them being made.
Now, naturally, since she's just making this shit up anyway, what it really amounts to is an increase in her ability to make income; she can call all her clients up and say "You must come in immediately for a new reading, as NASA has just fucked up the heavens." and dupe these poor sons of bitches yet again. And if anybody thinks this lady is up to anything but a (successful) publicity stunt, you're way off base.
Also, in more direct conflict of the parent statement:
1)TFA doesn't say she's suing them for loss-of-business damages, but "moral sufferings"....you just made that up.
2)300 million? How long would it have taken her to earn that much? Because that's what the damages would be determined by if the cause of action was what you claim. It isn't.
Keith makes lots of good points. He also notes that a lot of work is already being done toward fixing some of these issues, or at least cleaning them up some. Of course, you have to balance these things; he's discussing what would be ideal, when in reality the Xorg folks would like to keep some reasonable release schedule, which means not overhauling the whole thing at once. The archetecture has been moving toward kernel drivers and a unified gl-based renderer for some time, and that's good.
However, it doesn't at all add up to a change away from X11R6. Nothing Keith proposes requires a protocol change...just a reworking of Xorg's implementation of X11R6. It looks like from the second part of your post that you see that, but I'd like to make doubly-clear....the protocol is fine. And as for the servers, they may be a bit ugly, but they work for now, and they'll get there.
And the system isn't limited to Skype users, since Skype will (for a small per-minute charge) connect to most of the world's wired and mobile phones
WTF? What's the point? This doesn't look like it's going to come out cheaper for many people; once you pay for 2 cell phones with phone-to-phone and skype's per minute charge (whose value I don't know, as my cursory glance through their website didn't turn up any rates), I'd think most folks' usage on a single plan would be cheaper. I'm pretty sure mine would.
On the other hand, this may provoke the big guys to simply go ahead and price out unlimited service. They could probably meet a price point at or very near whatever this kind of setup would cost and still make a profit. There are apparently a couple outfits around here already doing it...
Yeah, I read most of it; that's where I got that first email. And while he was not yelling and screaming during most of it, it did make clear why they were throwing him out. I think the most telling part was Herb's email near the end. This guy used to be a really good friend of Theo's, and says he watched him treat everybody like shit until nobody wanted to hang around him, including himself (Herb).
And of course, the Forbes story doesn't do him any favors. It's obvious that Theo is abusive and needs to be in a position of superiority.
While I can only speak for my own experience, I ran FreeBSD for several years, at both home and work, and found that most users of the OS were pretty laid back and pragmatic, and didn't have anything against Linux users -- they just thought BSD was better, and if you asked them why, they'd tell you.
That's not my problem with them. To tell the truth, I don't much care what OS or other software someone likes; I like some things, so I use them, and that's that. As it happens, my employer is a complete FreeBSD shop. I don't like it as much as I like the Linux servers I have on the side, but it does the job and that I'll guarantee.
No, my problem is the arrogance and pointed unhelpfulness of the BSD community. Perhaps Linux was more like that in the.99 days (I started with whatever 2.0 version RedHat 5.2 used), but now if you go to any of the larger distros' IRC channels you can typically get excellent help without a bunch of bullshit. In #freebsd, or on their mailing list, I've seen more "RTFM" and "You're an idiot; go read the handbook and learn how to use UNIX" than anywhere else, ever. It was almost like Theo was the author.
But, you know, don't take it like I'm some thin-skinned wimp....like I said, I still use the software every day. It's just that when I get confused about something, I know better than to go asking anybody for a hand.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linspire use Debian as a base?
You aren't wrong. But what they've added to that Debian base is of seriously dubious value. Specifically, this whole click-n-run software library.....wtf? Now I have to pay to use apt-get?
I wholeheartedly agree with your post's parent; I'd ditch Linspire in a hurry and get a real distro.
See, you're missing the point. I didn't ever say Theo doesn't write great code. I didn't ever say that being an asshole has a negative effect on the quality of software one might produce. I just called him a dickhead.
Writing great software is nice. But it does not excuse being a total fucking dickhead. And when you go off spewing bullshit like this about how some rival software is "total crap" and how everybody who develops for said software must be an idiot who doesn't care about quality, you're a total fucking dickhead. And that's that.
And then of course, there's the fact that he's just wrong in so many ways. First this business of "Linux developers develop because they hate Microsoft." Horseshit. There might be a small percentage of people that feel that way, but I barely ever see it. I see some users talking that way, but the developer types are usually doing stuff because they love the system and want to make it better. Most of them don't even view this as a fight with Microsoft; Linux is just the natural system for so many things these days, it's just the place you want to develop. And as for Linux not being "high-quality" (subjective enough for everybody?) he's full of shit there too. Linux doesn't have the same absolute-security-is-all-that-matters mentality of OpenBSD, and most of us are glad. Because it'll whip the shit out of it in performance, functionality, ease-of-use/configuration, and a whole lot of other things.
Theo creates good software. But it's extremely single-minded in its purpose. The fact that he can't recognize that lots of people want other things from their software is a definite oversight. And the fact that he thinks he ought to go public with the kind of trash he spews is a major character flaw.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Otter, I've got to say congratulations; you're the first person on the other side of this argument that I've seen make a reasonable point that might hold up. And I read the first /. discussion too.
The point I'm congratulating is the confrontation argument. If the owner of the AP actually came out and told the leech to get off his network, then yes, I'd agree that the leech needs to leave or face these felony charges.
That said, my reading of TFA does not suggest that this happened in this case. TFA says Dinon (the AP owner) approached close enough to the vehicle to see Smith (the leech) close his laptop. But it does not say that Dinon actually spoke to Smith at any point, or told him to quit using the network.
Now, if you want to say it was obvious from Dinon's actions that Smith wasn't welcome, we get into muddy water. But I don't think that's enough...imagine the case where somebody shoots somebody knocking on his door without any warning and then says "well, he could see I was lookin' at him mean like."
The other half of your point is not as meritous. The AC who has already replied to you says it about as well as I could: the nerd logic is the logic that matters when we're talking about networking policy. If I can't trust the network's automatic authorization, then I also can't connect to google on port 80 without permission. The entire Internet requires that we defer the jobs of authorization and authentication to automatic processes, and the owner of a wide-open AP is doing just that.
The analogy is an open wallet on a restaurant table. I'd say that's pretty open. It does broadcast that it's open, using visible light. The "fucking thing is offering free money!!!!!" The point is that the user did not intend it to be open, but it is.
Just one more time, this is not the same. The "broadcasting using visible light" business is horseshit; that broadcast is more analogous to how an AP still unintentionally announces its presence even if it isn't broadcasting the SSID. The difference is in one case you have to catch network traffic and look for the network information in it, whereas in the broadcasting-SSID case the device is actively telling all comers that it is there and available. It's the difference between a wallet on a table, which you can see....and a wallet on a table with a sign next to it saying "go ahead and use the credit cards." And unless it has that sign on it, it's not "offering free money." But an AP is actively offering network access. You make a request, it answers yes. That's authorization.
I'm really boggled by the fact that some of you can't get your heads wrapped around this. It's simple; AP says "I'm here and public" (broadcasts its SSID), user says "Can I get a network address?" (DHCP request), and AP says "Sure, use this one" (DHCP lease). That's just exactly like you walking up to this guy in the restaraunt and saying "Hey, I see you've got a wallet open there; can I use your credit card?" and the guy saying "yeah, no problem."
I thought the post about asking the owner was a good idea.
Are you even reading these posts? You do ask the owner....it's called a "DHCP request" for a reason. You ask it for an IP, and if it gives you one, it has authorized you to be on the network. Come on now...this is really simple.
Christ driving around to see what doors stupid ppl have left open should not be a crime. If I drive around my neighborhood and look at how many dumb ppl have left their front door wide open should I be arrested. Breaking in is one thing but just looking is another.
That's a horrible analogy. Because it is and should be illegal to walk into somebody's house without permission, even if the door is open.
But that's not what an AP setup like this is like. It's not just "open" ...it's actively inviting people to use its access. It's broadcasting an SSID, and then answering DHCP requests by giving out leases. So, using an AP that was configured like the one in this case is more like driving around looking for signs that say "keg party down the street" then finding the house that says "keg party" on the door, then knocking, and having the door answered by somebody who says "come on in" and hands you a cup for the keg.
This does not hold if the AP is not broadcasting its SSID and using DHCP. If you go sniff the network and setup a static address on it, you've probably done so without permission. But when the system advertises its existence and offers you an IP when you ask, you have just been authorized to use the network.
First, good points on the McDonald's case. I hate it when people start bitching about that one. She had 3rd degree burns on her fucking vagina for christ's sake. And it was 4 million if I remember right, which is a perfectly reasonable amount of punitive damages when the defendant is as huge as McDonald's and thus won't be punished by a smaller verdict.
However, then you slip into pure ignorance with this:
Yeah, it's the rape victim's fault for dressing like that, she had it coming! An open door is *not* an invitation, no matter how much you might want what's inside.
Read the 10 posts above that show why an "open door" is not analogous to this...the rape analogy is immeasurably worse. Acess points setup like this one actively broadcast invitations. Read above for the keg party analogy. Or consider a rape case where the "victim" actually said in her testimony that she said out loud "please have sex with me." and then never told the "rapist" to stop.
What if I'm at a restaurant, and I leave my wallet on the table while I'm using the restroom... am I letting you have access to my credit cards or am I too stupid to conceal my wallet? How can you differentiate? You can't, so you'd just take my wallet without asking?
GODDAMMIT! How many of you people have to make these absolutely banal unlike analogies!? For this to be the same, your wallet would have to somehow be broadcasting that it is there and available, and would have to somehow have to be actively authorizing all users to sign for the credit cards. This fucking thing is offering IP addresses!!!!
Please specify whether you are a lawyer or not next time. You have to.
Actually, I don't have to.
We depend on the law advice on slashdot; you know that.
Sorry to hear that. Very naive of you. Even if someone tells you that he/she is a lawyer, and gives you advice on slashdot, it is no substitute for hiring one.
If you preface your statement with IANAL, I know you're some idiot with as much knowledge of the law as the packing material I just threw away.
Then you don't "know" much.
If you instead qualify your statement with IAAL, I'll listen to your legal advice, quietly cuss you out for being a snake with no morals, and go about my day (hopefully more informed though).
Just digging the hole deeper. Not only are you apparently completely unaware that there are non-lawyers with a great deal of legal knowledge, you also believe that all lawyers are "snakes with no morals." Please fuck off.
Thank you.
Not at all. If the network had WEP (or any other protection enabled) and the admin had handed out the password, then your keys analogy would be the same. Since there was NO protection on the network no key was handed out, or stolen, to provide access; hell there was no door for the key to go in.
Perhaps there was no door....but there was a banner out in the street that said "open doorway over here" (SSID broadcast) and a guy standing in the foyer (DHCP server) stamping hands (assigning IPs) for the keg party.
That's the big point here. The AP is not a passive device. It's actively granting people access and advertising that it will.
I agree. But the reporter (whose number is at the bottom of the article) didn't know who the defense lawyer was except to say he was a public defender. Obviously, that suggests shoddy reporting, but more importantly, it makes the prosecutor's office the most reasonable place to try to get that number. I've since called the reporter back to try to get the case number, but got voicemail and haven't received a return call.
In any case, despite my agreement that the defense lawyer should be made aware, you clearly don't recognize the decision powers available to a prosecutor. Should one adequately explain this situation to him, he can very easily decide not to bring the charges. And he can issue a press release if he likes to set things straight so that a bunch of people don't start bringing up this frivolous crap and wasting city/county resources. Let me tell you, calling the prosecutor's office and being nice/polite and informative about a situation for which charges have been brought is frequently very productive.
The problem with your logic is there's no way to put up a sign that says "Come on in" with WIFI.
Actually, there is. It's called broadcasting your SSID, using no authentication, and offering DHCP leases without restriction. That combination quite literally invites everyone onto the network.
And if you leave your front door unlocked you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter. NOT!
Sorry, but this analogy doesn't even begin to hold water. Closer would be:
And if you leave your front door standing open with a sign on it saying "please come in, party inside" and signs all the way down your block saying "party this way, door open, come on in." you are granting access to anyone who wants to enter.
And I'd agree with that. Don't forget, these broadcasts are public. They aren't limited to his property, and his AP is granting access. His DHCP request is like him knocking on the door. The AP granting the lease is like you opening the door and saying "come on in." If his AP had been locked down, it would be like you saying "get off my property."
Come one folks, just because you easily CAN do something doesn't mean it's ethical or right. I think that if you use somebody's network, it limits their own bandwidth, doesn't it? If not, then I'd agree it should not be illegal. But if so, then you are stealing from them.
This fails the same logic test. Yes, it limits their bandwidth. And they are specifically allowing that behavior by giving you an IP address. If this was a static network the question would be slightly more up in the air, but the AP gave them the address and allowed them unrestricted network access. That's like having the sign on the door say "free punch and cookies inside in the party." You're trying to say this guy was stealing punch.
I know I'm going to get flamed/modded down, but somebody has to say this.
Well, I guess if somebody has to say some really poorly though-out garbage, then ok, it might as well be you.
Well, I need the case number on this. Because the prosecutor's office says they have too many Benjamin Smiths, and apparently can't add "the third" or the arrest date to their query. But I'm definitely trying to find out who the public defender is in this case so I can suggest he use an argument based on the fact that the AP owner was distributing network access freely over public airwaves, and thus was authorizing access.
If anybody else wants to take a crack at it, the prosecutor's phone number is 727-464-6221.
The prosecuter's office that is handling this case can be reached at 727-464-6221.
I suggest we let them know that if you broadcast an SSID into the public airwaves and then grant DHCP leases across it you are authorizing access to your network.
This is ridiculous. Listen to this lady from an ISP:
"It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft," said Kena Lewis, spokeswoman for Bright House Networks in Orlando. "Just because a crime may be undetectable doesn't make it right."
No different? Is this taken out of context, and she's faulting the owner of the AP? Because that's the only way that it's even remotely the same, and then it depends on the terms of service of the ISP. The MS EULA prohibits you from using the software if you haven't legally acquired it, and prohibits the user from redistributing. So, no matter whether you are the sharer or sharee, you're violating the agreement...and you had to view and agree to the agreement to put the software on. In this case, the ISP's TOS is only agreed to by the customer. So, the person using the access has no obligations to that ISP. The person putting up an unsecured AP may well be in violation, but that's a different issue.
I can't tell whether the reporter should be blamed for using the quote out of context, or whether the ISP spokeswoman should be blamed for bullshitting. But one way or another, that's bullshit.
The whole tone of this article is dead wrong. The reporter is just taking what he's handfed by the cops. Take this for example:
In another Florida case, a man in an apartment complex used a neighbor's Wi-Fi to access bank information and pay for pornography sites.
So, wait.....which part of this is wrong? So the guy is into porn? Jesus, have him shot! Note that it doesn't say he was accessing other people's banking information. The whole story just implies misconduct by making the guy who got arrested out to be some peeping-tom type hanging out in the yard and acting suspicious, and making everybody else who has hung out on a wifi network (me and probably 70% of the rest of us here included of course) lumped in as a bad guy because this is obviously some kind of foul play. Never mind the fact that they are broadcasting access to their fucking network on our public airwaves!
Also, the poor guy admitted to using the connection too (unauthorized access to a computer network, which is a third degree felony according to the article).
First, whether he admitted it is not terribly important by the time police have him and the laptop in their possession. The AP knows the MAC address used to connect.
Second, and far more importantly, this is not unauthorized access. The AP authorized the access by granting his laptop a DHCP lease, and the owner of the AP set it up to do just that. I'd like to know some addresses I can email down there to send a quick explanation of how that works. Because this is absolute bullshit.
Actually, they said Southerners, not Americans. And they only claimed that they were less well-trained than their Ontario counterparts.
This may seem like a semantic difference on the surface, but it does bear some extremely important distinctions. Specifically, the way you put it, the blame falls on the American worker, who is simply "stupid." He lacks natural mental ability. The way I put it, it falls where it should, on our (poor) education and job training systems. He lacks a social system that can make him an effective worker as it should. And your way ignores the vast differences in training/education within our country; I dare say Toyota would not level these accusations at New York or Washington state (or probably most of the others...these are just quick examples). But, since those states aren't hurting for employment the way the South is, they weren't offering Toyota hundreds of millions of free dollars the way the Southern states (and Ontario!) were, which is to say they weren't even part of the question.
Point is, while there are some issues with education (which in parts of the states are pretty serious), Americans aren't and never were stupid...you don't get to where we are that way. As (Frenchman) Captain Renault says in Casablanca to the Nazi major making the same mistake: "We musn't underestimate American blundering; I was with them when they blundered into Berlin in 1918."
The woman is suing the government for depriving her of her ability to make an income in her current profession.
Bullshit.
Changing the course of a celestial body in no way deprives this person of her livelihood. She's supposed to read the movements of the stars, right? Ok, so this was one of them. We, humans, products of the universe, make changes to it just like stars and planets exert their own forces on comets. An astrologer should be reading the movements, not complaining about them being made.
Now, naturally, since she's just making this shit up anyway, what it really amounts to is an increase in her ability to make income; she can call all her clients up and say "You must come in immediately for a new reading, as NASA has just fucked up the heavens." and dupe these poor sons of bitches yet again. And if anybody thinks this lady is up to anything but a (successful) publicity stunt, you're way off base.
Also, in more direct conflict of the parent statement:
1)TFA doesn't say she's suing them for loss-of-business damages, but "moral sufferings" ....you just made that up.
2)300 million? How long would it have taken her to earn that much? Because that's what the damages would be determined by if the cause of action was what you claim. It isn't.
joke
Keith makes lots of good points. He also notes that a lot of work is already being done toward fixing some of these issues, or at least cleaning them up some. Of course, you have to balance these things; he's discussing what would be ideal, when in reality the Xorg folks would like to keep some reasonable release schedule, which means not overhauling the whole thing at once. The archetecture has been moving toward kernel drivers and a unified gl-based renderer for some time, and that's good.
However, it doesn't at all add up to a change away from X11R6. Nothing Keith proposes requires a protocol change...just a reworking of Xorg's implementation of X11R6. It looks like from the second part of your post that you see that, but I'd like to make doubly-clear....the protocol is fine. And as for the servers, they may be a bit ugly, but they work for now, and they'll get there.
From TFA:
And the system isn't limited to Skype users, since Skype will (for a small per-minute charge) connect to most of the world's wired and mobile phones
WTF? What's the point? This doesn't look like it's going to come out cheaper for many people; once you pay for 2 cell phones with phone-to-phone and skype's per minute charge (whose value I don't know, as my cursory glance through their website didn't turn up any rates), I'd think most folks' usage on a single plan would be cheaper. I'm pretty sure mine would.
On the other hand, this may provoke the big guys to simply go ahead and price out unlimited service. They could probably meet a price point at or very near whatever this kind of setup would cost and still make a profit. There are apparently a couple outfits around here already doing it...
Yeah, I read most of it; that's where I got that first email. And while he was not yelling and screaming during most of it, it did make clear why they were throwing him out. I think the most telling part was Herb's email near the end. This guy used to be a really good friend of Theo's, and says he watched him treat everybody like shit until nobody wanted to hang around him, including himself (Herb).
And of course, the Forbes story doesn't do him any favors. It's obvious that Theo is abusive and needs to be in a position of superiority.
While I can only speak for my own experience, I ran FreeBSD for several years, at both home and work, and found that most users of the OS were pretty laid back and pragmatic, and didn't have anything against Linux users -- they just thought BSD was better, and if you asked them why, they'd tell you.
That's not my problem with them. To tell the truth, I don't much care what OS or other software someone likes; I like some things, so I use them, and that's that. As it happens, my employer is a complete FreeBSD shop. I don't like it as much as I like the Linux servers I have on the side, but it does the job and that I'll guarantee.
No, my problem is the arrogance and pointed unhelpfulness of the BSD community. Perhaps Linux was more like that in the .99 days (I started with whatever 2.0 version RedHat 5.2 used), but now if you go to any of the larger distros' IRC channels you can typically get excellent help without a bunch of bullshit. In #freebsd, or on their mailing list, I've seen more "RTFM" and "You're an idiot; go read the handbook and learn how to use UNIX" than anywhere else, ever. It was almost like Theo was the author.
But, you know, don't take it like I'm some thin-skinned wimp....like I said, I still use the software every day. It's just that when I get confused about something, I know better than to go asking anybody for a hand.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linspire use Debian as a base?
You aren't wrong. But what they've added to that Debian base is of seriously dubious value. Specifically, this whole click-n-run software library.....wtf? Now I have to pay to use apt-get?
I wholeheartedly agree with your post's parent; I'd ditch Linspire in a hurry and get a real distro.
See, you're missing the point. I didn't ever say Theo doesn't write great code. I didn't ever say that being an asshole has a negative effect on the quality of software one might produce. I just called him a dickhead.
Writing great software is nice. But it does not excuse being a total fucking dickhead. And when you go off spewing bullshit like this about how some rival software is "total crap" and how everybody who develops for said software must be an idiot who doesn't care about quality, you're a total fucking dickhead. And that's that.
And then of course, there's the fact that he's just wrong in so many ways. First this business of "Linux developers develop because they hate Microsoft." Horseshit. There might be a small percentage of people that feel that way, but I barely ever see it. I see some users talking that way, but the developer types are usually doing stuff because they love the system and want to make it better. Most of them don't even view this as a fight with Microsoft; Linux is just the natural system for so many things these days, it's just the place you want to develop. And as for Linux not being "high-quality" (subjective enough for everybody?) he's full of shit there too. Linux doesn't have the same absolute-security-is-all-that-matters mentality of OpenBSD, and most of us are glad. Because it'll whip the shit out of it in performance, functionality, ease-of-use/configuration, and a whole lot of other things.
Theo creates good software. But it's extremely single-minded in its purpose. The fact that he can't recognize that lots of people want other things from their software is a definite oversight. And the fact that he thinks he ought to go public with the kind of trash he spews is a major character flaw.