For what it's worth, the 2.4 GHz band isn't completely unlicensed. It's legal to use up to one watt of power without a license; if you have a Technician or higher ham license, you can use up to 100W. What does this mean? My dad, with a 70' tower in his back yard, can legally set up a wireless network with a 10.25 mile radius. (The power is effectively unlimited, because 2.4 GHz requires line of sight, which will run out long before a 100W signal becomes unusably weak, so the range effectively depends only on the height of the tower.) I'm going to upgrade my outdated Novice license to a Tech, and he and I are going to construct a wireless network spanning the 15 mile gap from Plymouth, Michigan to Ann Arbor next fall, when I go back to school (school being the University of Michigan, which is, of course, in Ann Arbor).
Since you no longer have to learn Morse code to get a ham radio license, I've been encouraging my friends to get licenses so that they can buy and use the equipment necessary to connect to this network-to-be.
Now, you ask, with a 10.25 mile range, how do you span 15 miles? After all, I won't have a tower in the back yard of my apartment (especially considering that it's a parking lot anyway).
Well, the 2.4 GHz band requires line-of sight, but lower frequency waves will refract around the curvature of the earth. What we need is to find a low frequency band where we can use spread spectrum, and get a transverter that will convert a 2.4 GHz signal to that other frequency. If this turns out to be impossible, we'll look for another ham somewhere in between our two stations with a tower high enough to see both, and see if we can talk him/her into setting up another node.
The wireless Internet is coming. At this stage, participation requires a license, but this may change. If it doesn't, hey--the license is free, you just have to pass what amounts to a fairly simple physics test to get it. The best part is that ham radio licenses prohibit commercial use, so that this nascent wireless Internet will be a free service.
I know it's off-topic, but such things are worth knowing, wouldn't you say?
What about the "ignorant"? If my neighbor has no clue that he is sharing his bandwidth with the whole apartment complex, then how is my using his network anything less than theft of services? (Not counting that his ISP probably forbids it in the TOS anyway).
I think you've brought up the first reasonably valid point against this law that I've seen so far--since this law is meant to protect people who accidentally stumble upon open networks, it's reasonable to ask what happens to people who accidentally leave their networks open, especially if those people can get in trouble by you using their network--even accidentally. However, since any wireless base station is likely to come with a manual explaining how to change the network name, set up WEP, etc., it's reasonable to expect owners of such devices to have the knowledge necessary for at least the most basic security measures. It comes down to RTFM.
Now, in the case of a base station with a manual that doesn't mention security, or that doesn't come with a manual, the responsibility still doesn't fall on the stumbler--it falls on the manufacturer.
No, no, no. Sure, if someone walks into your house and takes stuff, that's illegal. But what if the door isn't just unlocked--what if there is no door? What if there's no house, and no sign to say that anyone in particular owns that property? What if you just leave your stuff out in the middle of nowhere? That's abandoned property, and I, for one, will take it.
Since a lot of people put up wireless nodes with the intent of having random passers-by use them, and declare them open to the public only by not securing them, the above analogy doesn't even go far enough. If you have an insecure wireless network, you've even put a road through the middle of your property. It's a major road, and a lot of businesses are on it. It's called the Internet. You've strewn your TV and furniture and so on by the side of that road and put a sign near it that says,
Not quite. In physical property, there are several levels of security. Most people, when they see a house, know that they shouldn't go into it, but that doesn't mean it's not incredibly easy to get in. It's somewhere in between a highway and a barbed-wire fence: a highway is open to everyone (with a driver's license), a barbed-wire fence forcefully keeps people out, but an unlocked door to an unfamiliar house tells you that you shouldn't go in, without actually keeping you out.
In wireless networks, you are either a highway, or you are surrounded by a barbed-wire fence (of course, with WEP, the barbed wire is installed backwards, but that's a different matter). There's no way of telling people that they shouldn't enter, without actually forcefully keeping them out (never mind that the encryption is very weak and flawed). If someone's looking for a highway, and they find your accidentally-open network, they just have to assume that it's the highway they're looking for and use it. It's only when they go out of their way to break into a place where they obviously shouldn't be, that they should be breaking a law.
I will soon be running an open wireless network, intentionally providing Internet access to random passers-by. If my dad and I are successful, his node in Plymouth, Michigan will be connected to my node 15 miles away in my apartment in Ann Arbor.
The goal is to use our ham radio licenses to operate a couple of the first nodes of an emerging wireless internet. The basic idea is that these wireless nodes will eventually overlap and allow access virtually everywhere, and we, out of sheer geekiness, want in on the ground floor. (There's no money to be made, since our ham licenses prohibit commercial use--so it really is for the geek aspect.)
But if it's illegal for people to use our connection, or any other random wireless node they stumble on, how can such a replacement Internet flourish? The only way to let people know they're allowed to use your network is by making it be open; the only way to tell people not to use it is to secure it. Laws against stumbling benefit those who are to lazy to turn on WEP, while inhibiting the altruistic efforts of those of us trying to create a wireless Internet.
Oh, and they're impossible to enforce, too--so what's the point? An unenforceable law amounts to a polite suggestion from our legislators, and we've all seen how effective that's been at stopping Internet file sharing.
Are you okay with computers powered by Motorola chips? If not, maybe the PowerPC 970 that's supposedly coming from IBM later this year will do it for you.
Fancy computer: $3300 (including monitor) One year of Internet service in my dorm room: $59. Lots of open source software: free. Vast quantities of music: $1200+, and many hours on P2P networks. DVD rip of The Two Towers: free. Constructing an FTP server for my amusement, and letting my college's network take the strain as I/. it: Priceless.
(Sorry, the school year's over and I don't think my home DSL connection can take that kind of abuse.) -- Six, Four-foot rubber bands: free. Eight-foot galvanized steel poles, other equipment: ~$40. Constructing a huge slingshot so powerful that water balloons break as soon as they're released: Priceless.
As otherposts have pointedout, he isn't actually being prosecuted for benefiting from his theft; he's being prosecuted for damaging the company he stole from and possibly benefiting foreign governments and companies in the process. He violated exactly the law under which he's being prosecuted. He also very likely violated several other laws, but this is the one under which DirecTV chose to prosecute him, and that's their prerogative.
As a Mac user, I prefer EyeTV. Records directly to my computer's hard drive, adding flexibility; records automagically, like TiVo; no spyware; no monthly fee; etc., etc., etc.
The parents have deeper pockets, so they're liable.
Besides, seeing their parents lose all their money and then go to jail will surely cause the kids to go out and buy the next Britney Spears album. Seeing their kids go to jail won't make the parents any more likely to buy such shitty music.
The job of the government in a democracy is not to protect the consumer. Consumers don't have rights; consumers don't vote. Consumers buy stuff.
The job of the government in a democracy is to protect the citizen. I am not a consumer; I am a citizen, and I have rights, and I vote. I also happen to buy stuff, but this does not define my relationship to the government, it defines my relationship to corporations. To them, yes, I am a consumer.
The problem with our government today is that politicians have forgotten exactly who it is they're supposed to be helping. They're mixed up in a slightly different way from you, however; they think it's their job to protect corporations.
Consumers don't have rights, but consumers are also citizens, and citizens do have rights. Corporations are not people, and as such are not citizens. Their rights are not constitutionally protected. If only politicians realized this, this country would be a better place to live.
Or maybe they do realize it, and they also realize they can make more money this way.
Use more than one line from a song and put \n between lines. Use always the nth letter from the nth word (or the last letter when there are n letters in the word). Put every fifth letter in l33t sp34k.
It's still easy to generate from an easily memorized verse, and after a few uses you'll memorize the password itself. Meanwhile, there's virtually no way to guess it.
With that in mind, saying my password is based on the name of my favorite tv show doesn't help you much if the password is actually "s1Ms0nz\/R0olz" or something like that--so even those "top ten password categories" being listed all over the place don't have quite as much meaning as people ascribe to them.
I think it would almost be funnier to give something that was obviously an impossible password, like "Aõ;9m0#t2&6=!" and just hope they don't ask you to repeat it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's sad that many people can parse and write C code, but can't construct a sentence in their native, natural language.
The patent office doesn't reject applications when there is prior art. The submitter of the application is "required" to do a search on their own for things that might constitute prior art, and include them in their application, but the patent office doesn't do its own search and reject applications that have already been done. Basically, this requirement is unenforceable, and the fact that the patent office doesn't do this search themselves is very likely the reason for most frivolous patents.
The patent on linking won't fly--if it holds up in court, nobody will pay attention but Prodigy. BT can't sue every company and individual with a Web site.
I suspect, though, that it won't fly for a different reason--nobody's selling links. I'm not carefully crafting a hyperlink, then selling it to you for use on your Web site. You're making links for your own use. Just because some damned corporation has a patent on musical condoms doesn't mean I can't make one to use next time I bend that corporation's CEO over; it just means I can't produce and sell them without paying royalties. It's sort of like how copyrights on a song don't mean that I have to pay a royalty every time I sing along with the song in my car--even if someone's in the passenger seat listening (and covering their ears, most likely). (If I weren't such a terrible singer, maybe that person wouldn't cover their ears, in which case they would be consuming my reproduction of the song--but unless they're paying for the pleasure of hearing my off-key, out of tune singing, I'm still okay.)
As for the banner patent, I sort of wish it would fly, but it won't for the same reason. Ah well, Safari blocks most popup ads, so I'll make it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure--I'll let you be in my network if I can be in yours.
(Apologies to Bob Dylan. If you want to hear it, it's somewhere in here.)
For what it's worth, the 2.4 GHz band isn't completely unlicensed. It's legal to use up to one watt of power without a license; if you have a Technician or higher ham license, you can use up to 100W. What does this mean? My dad, with a 70' tower in his back yard, can legally set up a wireless network with a 10.25 mile radius. (The power is effectively unlimited, because 2.4 GHz requires line of sight, which will run out long before a 100W signal becomes unusably weak, so the range effectively depends only on the height of the tower.) I'm going to upgrade my outdated Novice license to a Tech, and he and I are going to construct a wireless network spanning the 15 mile gap from Plymouth, Michigan to Ann Arbor next fall, when I go back to school (school being the University of Michigan, which is, of course, in Ann Arbor).
Since you no longer have to learn Morse code to get a ham radio license, I've been encouraging my friends to get licenses so that they can buy and use the equipment necessary to connect to this network-to-be.
Now, you ask, with a 10.25 mile range, how do you span 15 miles? After all, I won't have a tower in the back yard of my apartment (especially considering that it's a parking lot anyway).
Well, the 2.4 GHz band requires line-of sight, but lower frequency waves will refract around the curvature of the earth. What we need is to find a low frequency band where we can use spread spectrum, and get a transverter that will convert a 2.4 GHz signal to that other frequency. If this turns out to be impossible, we'll look for another ham somewhere in between our two stations with a tower high enough to see both, and see if we can talk him/her into setting up another node.
The wireless Internet is coming. At this stage, participation requires a license, but this may change. If it doesn't, hey--the license is free, you just have to pass what amounts to a fairly simple physics test to get it. The best part is that ham radio licenses prohibit commercial use, so that this nascent wireless Internet will be a free service.
I know it's off-topic, but such things are worth knowing, wouldn't you say?
What about the "ignorant"? If my neighbor has no clue that he is sharing his bandwidth with the whole apartment complex, then how is my using his network anything less than theft of services? (Not counting that his ISP probably forbids it in the TOS anyway).
I think you've brought up the first reasonably valid point against this law that I've seen so far--since this law is meant to protect people who accidentally stumble upon open networks, it's reasonable to ask what happens to people who accidentally leave their networks open, especially if those people can get in trouble by you using their network--even accidentally. However, since any wireless base station is likely to come with a manual explaining how to change the network name, set up WEP, etc., it's reasonable to expect owners of such devices to have the knowledge necessary for at least the most basic security measures. It comes down to RTFM.
Now, in the case of a base station with a manual that doesn't mention security, or that doesn't come with a manual, the responsibility still doesn't fall on the stumbler--it falls on the manufacturer.
No, no, no. Sure, if someone walks into your house and takes stuff, that's illegal. But what if the door isn't just unlocked--what if there is no door? What if there's no house, and no sign to say that anyone in particular owns that property? What if you just leave your stuff out in the middle of nowhere? That's abandoned property, and I, for one, will take it.
Since a lot of people put up wireless nodes with the intent of having random passers-by use them, and declare them open to the public only by not securing them, the above analogy doesn't even go far enough. If you have an insecure wireless network, you've even put a road through the middle of your property. It's a major road, and a lot of businesses are on it. It's called the Internet. You've strewn your TV and furniture and so on by the side of that road and put a sign near it that says,
"Free stuff!"
Damn...I just made a comparison of a similar nature in response to a comment above, but your example is far superior. My hat is off to you, sir.
Not quite. In physical property, there are several levels of security. Most people, when they see a house, know that they shouldn't go into it, but that doesn't mean it's not incredibly easy to get in. It's somewhere in between a highway and a barbed-wire fence: a highway is open to everyone (with a driver's license), a barbed-wire fence forcefully keeps people out, but an unlocked door to an unfamiliar house tells you that you shouldn't go in, without actually keeping you out.
In wireless networks, you are either a highway, or you are surrounded by a barbed-wire fence (of course, with WEP, the barbed wire is installed backwards, but that's a different matter). There's no way of telling people that they shouldn't enter, without actually forcefully keeping them out (never mind that the encryption is very weak and flawed). If someone's looking for a highway, and they find your accidentally-open network, they just have to assume that it's the highway they're looking for and use it. It's only when they go out of their way to break into a place where they obviously shouldn't be, that they should be breaking a law.
I will soon be running an open wireless network, intentionally providing Internet access to random passers-by. If my dad and I are successful, his node in Plymouth, Michigan will be connected to my node 15 miles away in my apartment in Ann Arbor.
The goal is to use our ham radio licenses to operate a couple of the first nodes of an emerging wireless internet. The basic idea is that these wireless nodes will eventually overlap and allow access virtually everywhere, and we, out of sheer geekiness, want in on the ground floor. (There's no money to be made, since our ham licenses prohibit commercial use--so it really is for the geek aspect.)
But if it's illegal for people to use our connection, or any other random wireless node they stumble on, how can such a replacement Internet flourish? The only way to let people know they're allowed to use your network is by making it be open; the only way to tell people not to use it is to secure it. Laws against stumbling benefit those who are to lazy to turn on WEP, while inhibiting the altruistic efforts of those of us trying to create a wireless Internet.
Oh, and they're impossible to enforce, too--so what's the point? An unenforceable law amounts to a polite suggestion from our legislators, and we've all seen how effective that's been at stopping Internet file sharing.
I stand corrected. Thank God I don't live in California.
Are you okay with computers powered by Motorola chips? If not, maybe the PowerPC 970 that's supposedly coming from IBM later this year will do it for you.
No, you're thinking of the national budget. I doubt California alone is $30 billion short (correct me if I'm wrong).
OSS writes YOU!
I can vouch for that.
/. it: Priceless.
Fancy computer: $3300 (including monitor)
One year of Internet service in my dorm room: $59.
Lots of open source software: free.
Vast quantities of music: $1200+, and many hours on P2P networks.
DVD rip of The Two Towers: free.
Constructing an FTP server for my amusement, and letting my college's network take the strain as I
(Sorry, the school year's over and I don't think my home DSL connection can take that kind of abuse.)
--
Six, Four-foot rubber bands: free.
Eight-foot galvanized steel poles, other equipment: ~$40.
Constructing a huge slingshot so powerful that water balloons break as soon as they're released: Priceless.
As other posts have pointed out, he isn't actually being prosecuted for benefiting from his theft; he's being prosecuted for damaging the company he stole from and possibly benefiting foreign governments and companies in the process. He violated exactly the law under which he's being prosecuted. He also very likely violated several other laws, but this is the one under which DirecTV chose to prosecute him, and that's their prerogative.
As a Mac user, I prefer EyeTV. Records directly to my computer's hard drive, adding flexibility; records automagically, like TiVo; no spyware; no monthly fee; etc., etc., etc.
But I bet it'll cool those hot pockets down in a hurry if they get too hot!
How is this off-topic? Someone better get meta-moded with a slap in the face for that one.
The parents have deeper pockets, so they're liable.
Besides, seeing their parents lose all their money and then go to jail will surely cause the kids to go out and buy the next Britney Spears album. Seeing their kids go to jail won't make the parents any more likely to buy such shitty music.
The job of the government in a democracy is not to protect the consumer. Consumers don't have rights; consumers don't vote. Consumers buy stuff.
The job of the government in a democracy is to protect the citizen. I am not a consumer; I am a citizen, and I have rights, and I vote. I also happen to buy stuff, but this does not define my relationship to the government, it defines my relationship to corporations. To them, yes, I am a consumer.
The problem with our government today is that politicians have forgotten exactly who it is they're supposed to be helping. They're mixed up in a slightly different way from you, however; they think it's their job to protect corporations.
Consumers don't have rights, but consumers are also citizens, and citizens do have rights. Corporations are not people, and as such are not citizens. Their rights are not constitutionally protected. If only politicians realized this, this country would be a better place to live.
Or maybe they do realize it, and they also realize they can make more money this way.
On a scale from 1 to clever, that guy was a dope. He had such a secure password, and he just yelled it out across the office. Way to go, man.
Use more than one line from a song and put \n between lines. Use always the nth letter from the nth word (or the last letter when there are n letters in the word). Put every fifth letter in l33t sp34k.
It's still easy to generate from an easily memorized verse, and after a few uses you'll memorize the password itself. Meanwhile, there's virtually no way to guess it.
With that in mind, saying my password is based on the name of my favorite tv show doesn't help you much if the password is actually "s1Ms0nz\/R0olz" or something like that--so even those "top ten password categories" being listed all over the place don't have quite as much meaning as people ascribe to them.
Good one. I'd have thrown in a "niner".
I think it would almost be funnier to give something that was obviously an impossible password, like "Aõ;9m0#t2&6=!" and just hope they don't ask you to repeat it.
Yuor Englsih si teh weak.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's sad that many people can parse and write C code, but can't construct a sentence in their native, natural language.
The patent office doesn't reject applications when there is prior art. The submitter of the application is "required" to do a search on their own for things that might constitute prior art, and include them in their application, but the patent office doesn't do its own search and reject applications that have already been done. Basically, this requirement is unenforceable, and the fact that the patent office doesn't do this search themselves is very likely the reason for most frivolous patents.
The patent on linking won't fly--if it holds up in court, nobody will pay attention but Prodigy. BT can't sue every company and individual with a Web site.
I suspect, though, that it won't fly for a different reason--nobody's selling links. I'm not carefully crafting a hyperlink, then selling it to you for use on your Web site. You're making links for your own use. Just because some damned corporation has a patent on musical condoms doesn't mean I can't make one to use next time I bend that corporation's CEO over; it just means I can't produce and sell them without paying royalties. It's sort of like how copyrights on a song don't mean that I have to pay a royalty every time I sing along with the song in my car--even if someone's in the passenger seat listening (and covering their ears, most likely). (If I weren't such a terrible singer, maybe that person wouldn't cover their ears, in which case they would be consuming my reproduction of the song--but unless they're paying for the pleasure of hearing my off-key, out of tune singing, I'm still okay.)
As for the banner patent, I sort of wish it would fly, but it won't for the same reason. Ah well, Safari blocks most popup ads, so I'll make it.