Um... blowing up buses in Israel IS considered terrorism (most of the news I heard said that). It's just that it happened so often there, that one of the following happened. 1. Growing apathy, there's only so much sorrow one can feel for anyone. 2. Numb, from exposing to all those horrific act. When you see enough of them, you get used to seeing in (not a good thing... but it happens). 3. Lack of connection, when you have no close ties there, No. 1 sets in very quickly.
Dude... it's called human nature. Human nature always value lives in the following sequence. 1. Our own (or our children) 2. Our close family members 3. Our family members in general. 4. Those similar to us (in race/ideology/etc). 5......... X. Others.
Sure, tens of thousands of innocent orphans should receive some sympathy. But the fact that it's a war and they're, however unfortunate, an inevitable result of having a war (their parents being associate with a group that has a reputation of harming the innocent doesn't exactly help their case).
P.S. I'm not white, but I'm more sympathetic to them brits then to them orphans in Iraq.
Apparently, you didn't even read your own holy text (I've read part of it, translated by your own religion). A few month past, I believed in the BS your kind told me, but once I started checking it out... I no longer believe.
Islam is a religion of violence. They not only condone violence, they promote it as a way to get into heaven.
So, you're suggesting that we should "Leave No Orphans" behind?
War and Terrorism (two are different things) are both a vicious cycle. Let's reverse the thinking, if my family were killed by terrorists, that I know are from a certain country, I will SURE AS HELL want my country to beat the crap out of said country (ABC weapons included). Sure, I want revenge, but I don't go out and ask my country to massacre every last child, woman, and man just because they all have potentials to become a terrorist.
I send my condolences to those who lost their family in the terrorist attack.
War brings more terrorism, because modern warfare places SO much importance on minimizing civilians casualties. While I personally don't favor this, I do believe there's only two ways the problem of terrorism can be solved.
1. Fight evil with good, forgive and make every effort to make peace (LONG, TEDIOUS, and with current political climate, not possible). 2. Wage unrestrictive/disproportional retaliative warfare (blow up one bus, massacre the whole village, think Soviet Union). (Quick, might work, might backfire, morally questionable, and hard to garner international support for this).
Take the middle ground, and you'll most likely end up soldiers dying needlessly.
In this specific instance, yes, he clearly has no permission.
But how on EARTH is the end user suppose to know whether the access point is authorized or not?? Compound that by the fact the MANY open access points are indeed authorized and the communication protocol clearly indicates that an open access point are implicit consent for others to use it (there's even a law for this). It is your own fault if you're too lazy (I might be more lenient if you're an idiot) to secure your wireless access and bitch about someone using when the protocol itself assume that unsecured access points are authorized.
Actually by law, it's not even illegal access. If he didn't ATTEMPT to secure his wireless network (a simple password will work), he has no legal standing in court when someone used his network.
People, either through ignorance, stupidity or plain apathy, don't care whether their wireless net is secured or not. For wireless company to ship routers pre-set with encryption degardes their product's perceive value by making it a bit harder to setup.
Rule (1) is in regard to unintended interference caused by device emitting RF in frequency that it is not authorized to use, and emitting them strong enough to interfere with other devices. Rule (2) has more to do with front-end overload and the fact that interferences are unavoidable. It merely means that the device must be strong enough to with stand frontend overload type interference and must the tolerant enought to ignore weak interference signal.
Combined, rule (1) says the device can't have a jamming effect on other frequency, rule (2) says the device need to be sufficient robust.
P.S. I'm not too clear on Rule (2), because it also sounds like the device should also be susceptible to jamming...
Um... just to let your know, the access points spoke of in this article ain't mesh network. And if you're willing to run an open access point for someone to use, fine. But do not be surprised when several people connected to your point using up 80% of your bandwidth.
In the case of this story, it might be a bit fuzzy. The perpetrator's actions (shutting computer when the owner draws near) could clearly falls under not just knowingly accessed a computer, but knowing that the owner might not or would not consent. However, this argument would not hold much weight since the owner didn't attempt to discourage such action by having a WEP encryption setup or a sign outside saying "Do not use my network".
The same argument could again be extended if his network is interfereing with yours, not likely a router to router interference, but more like his router messing up your TV reception (I know this is a bad analogy, since both used different freq band, but you get the general idea). He's liable for the interference if the interference doesn't fall under front-end overload (HIGHLY unlikely, since routers signal isn't that powerful).
Um... just to let you know, what you did is perfectly legal unless your cable company specifically state in their contract that you can't. What happened here is that someone, who is not authorized, access a wireless network that the owner doesn't want him to use (the fact that he didn't even bother to secure it not-withstanding for my current argument right now). If you connect your 3 computers to a secure network, it implies that you authrozed it (unless someone's a pointing a gun at your head forcing you to), which means everything is fine with it.
I think most routers kept a log of connection (mine came with one one automatically, easy for me to check if someone is using it, accidentally or not). If the format is similar, it should say something like....
XXX request for connection, XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX was granted to XXX, expires in X days.
Another reason that this is hard to enforce is that accidental leeching occurs.
For example, someone might set their wireless PC to connect to whatever connection that have the strongest signal (perhaps they travel a lot, and some airports have free wireless services, or they drink at Starbucks a lot). When they went home and turn on their computer, the wireless card might not link up to their own network but instead to their neightbors (both unsecured). It will be hard for police to prove that this was intentional. Unless you don't have a wireless router to begin with.
While I understand the points in your argument, there're a few points that are a bit off.
For one, some people who uses unencrypted wireless system do believe they have an expectation of privacy because they don't know that someone else could use their network (I've deal with family member who thought that the wireless router will know its only them and no one else can use them). While hopping on the system and using it may be legal (may not, but for now its not important), actively listening in to their connection is illegal. Using a wireless connection is similar, if not identical, to using a cordless phone. When you use a cordless phone, you still expect your communications to be private. Same as when you use wireless connection, most users still expect that their communications cannot be listened in on.
Um... in case you didn't read the article, they did state cases where people use compromised wireless network to send death threat, order sex toys. The child porn part is from the victim's own worry.
"I'm mainly worried about what the guy may have uploaded or downloaded, like kiddie porn," Dinon said. "But I'll probably never know."
I would be glad to request to them to store ALL orbital wastes at your backyard. Of course, they shouldn't be liable is they fired the retro rocket a bit late, causing the whole 200 pound object to land on your house at supersonic speed.
Slashdot Mirror
... I think the reason is that there's no where else to put it. Look to the Sections column, tell me where it's more appropriate?
Um... blowing up buses in Israel IS considered terrorism (most of the news I heard said that). It's just that it happened so often there, that one of the following happened.
1. Growing apathy, there's only so much sorrow one can feel for anyone.
2. Numb, from exposing to all those horrific act. When you see enough of them, you get used to seeing in (not a good thing... but it happens).
3. Lack of connection, when you have no close ties there, No. 1 sets in very quickly.
Dude... it's called human nature. Human nature always value lives in the following sequence. ... ...
1. Our own (or our children)
2. Our close family members
3. Our family members in general.
4. Those similar to us (in race/ideology/etc).
5...
X. Others.
Sure, tens of thousands of innocent orphans should receive some sympathy. But the fact that it's a war and they're, however unfortunate, an inevitable result of having a war (their parents being associate with a group that has a reputation of harming the innocent doesn't exactly help their case).
P.S. I'm not white, but I'm more sympathetic to them brits then to them orphans in Iraq.
Um... they were acting with the thinking that religions are bad. So they're technically acting "for the purpose to end religion".
Apparently, you didn't even read your own holy text (I've read part of it, translated by your own religion). A few month past, I believed in the BS your kind told me, but once I started checking it out... I no longer believe.
Islam is a religion of violence. They not only condone violence, they promote it as a way to get into heaven.
So, you're suggesting that we should "Leave No Orphans" behind?
War and Terrorism (two are different things) are both a vicious cycle. Let's reverse the thinking, if my family were killed by terrorists, that I know are from a certain country, I will SURE AS HELL want my country to beat the crap out of said country (ABC weapons included). Sure, I want revenge, but I don't go out and ask my country to massacre every last child, woman, and man just because they all have potentials to become a terrorist.
I send my condolences to those who lost their family in the terrorist attack.
War brings more terrorism, because modern warfare places SO much importance on minimizing civilians casualties. While I personally don't favor this, I do believe there's only two ways the problem of terrorism can be solved.
1. Fight evil with good, forgive and make every effort to make peace (LONG, TEDIOUS, and with current political climate, not possible).
2. Wage unrestrictive/disproportional retaliative warfare (blow up one bus, massacre the whole village, think Soviet Union). (Quick, might work, might backfire, morally questionable, and hard to garner international support for this).
Take the middle ground, and you'll most likely end up soldiers dying needlessly.
He also converniently forgot this passage
"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." - Roman 12:19 (also read 20~21 if you read Bible).
I think the reason they put this under politics is the fact that there's pretty much no where else to put it.
... You do know just about every name, when use some form of alternative numbering system, can show up with the number 666...
In this specific instance, yes, he clearly has no permission.
But how on EARTH is the end user suppose to know whether the access point is authorized or not?? Compound that by the fact the MANY open access points are indeed authorized and the communication protocol clearly indicates that an open access point are implicit consent for others to use it (there's even a law for this). It is your own fault if you're too lazy (I might be more lenient if you're an idiot) to secure your wireless access and bitch about someone using when the protocol itself assume that unsecured access points are authorized.
Actually by law, it's not even illegal access. If he didn't ATTEMPT to secure his wireless network (a simple password will work), he has no legal standing in court when someone used his network.
Reason: Competition.
People, either through ignorance, stupidity or plain apathy, don't care whether their wireless net is secured or not. For wireless company to ship routers pre-set with encryption degardes their product's perceive value by making it a bit harder to setup.
And... your point?
Rule (1) is in regard to unintended interference caused by device emitting RF in frequency that it is not authorized to use, and emitting them strong enough to interfere with other devices.
Rule (2) has more to do with front-end overload and the fact that interferences are unavoidable. It merely means that the device must be strong enough to with stand frontend overload type interference and must the tolerant enought to ignore weak interference signal.
Combined, rule (1) says the device can't have a jamming effect on other frequency, rule (2) says the device need to be sufficient robust.
P.S. I'm not too clear on Rule (2), because it also sounds like the device should also be susceptible to jamming...
Um... just to let your know, the access points spoke of in this article ain't mesh network. And if you're willing to run an open access point for someone to use, fine. But do not be surprised when several people connected to your point using up 80% of your bandwidth.
In the case of this story, it might be a bit fuzzy. The perpetrator's actions (shutting computer when the owner draws near) could clearly falls under not just knowingly accessed a computer, but knowing that the owner might not or would not consent. However, this argument would not hold much weight since the owner didn't attempt to discourage such action by having a WEP encryption setup or a sign outside saying "Do not use my network".
If they do, they need to put it into their service agreement and ACTIVELY provide equipement and/or instruction on how to secure it.
The same argument could again be extended if his network is interfereing with yours, not likely a router to router interference, but more like his router messing up your TV reception (I know this is a bad analogy, since both used different freq band, but you get the general idea). He's liable for the interference if the interference doesn't fall under front-end overload (HIGHLY unlikely, since routers signal isn't that powerful).
Um... just to let you know, what you did is perfectly legal unless your cable company specifically state in their contract that you can't. What happened here is that someone, who is not authorized, access a wireless network that the owner doesn't want him to use (the fact that he didn't even bother to secure it not-withstanding for my current argument right now). If you connect your 3 computers to a secure network, it implies that you authrozed it (unless someone's a pointing a gun at your head forcing you to), which means everything is fine with it.
I think most routers kept a log of connection (mine came with one one automatically, easy for me to check if someone is using it, accidentally or not). If the format is similar, it should say something like....
XXX request for connection, XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX was granted to XXX, expires in X days.
Another reason that this is hard to enforce is that accidental leeching occurs.
For example, someone might set their wireless PC to connect to whatever connection that have the strongest signal (perhaps they travel a lot, and some airports have free wireless services, or they drink at Starbucks a lot). When they went home and turn on their computer, the wireless card might not link up to their own network but instead to their neightbors (both unsecured). It will be hard for police to prove that this was intentional. Unless you don't have a wireless router to begin with.
While I understand the points in your argument, there're a few points that are a bit off.
For one, some people who uses unencrypted wireless system do believe they have an expectation of privacy because they don't know that someone else could use their network (I've deal with family member who thought that the wireless router will know its only them and no one else can use them). While hopping on the system and using it may be legal (may not, but for now its not important), actively listening in to their connection is illegal. Using a wireless connection is similar, if not identical, to using a cordless phone. When you use a cordless phone, you still expect your communications to be private. Same as when you use wireless connection, most users still expect that their communications cannot be listened in on.
Um... in case you didn't read the article, they did state cases where people use compromised wireless network to send death threat, order sex toys. The child porn part is from the victim's own worry.
"I'm mainly worried about what the guy may have uploaded or downloaded, like kiddie porn," Dinon said. "But I'll probably never know."
And minus the permanent memory lost.
I would be glad to request to them to store ALL orbital wastes at your backyard. Of course, they shouldn't be liable is they fired the retro rocket a bit late, causing the whole 200 pound object to land on your house at supersonic speed.