Respect? When I choose to set my router in a way that allows net access to the people using the chairs and tables in the courtyard, I don't want them knocking on my door all the time asking me if they really are allowed to do that, especially at times when I'm already asleep or busy doing something else. That would be very disrespectfully.
YOu can post a real sign on or near your door.
The SSID IS the "sign" of the network. The only sign on a wireless network that has any chance of working can be a wireless signal on the network itself.
No, read the specs. The ssid ONLY identifies the network and distingishes one network from another. No where does it say anything about authorization. If you like, change your SSID to something that says "ANY1ALLOWEDTOUSE." Then your ssid expresses permission.
The only solution is to get the router configured properly. For consumer devices, maybe a BIG, RED Private/Public flip switch on the side of the box, that only allows non-secured access when it's on the "Public" setting.
It is properly configured. I may choose to run unencrypted because that speeds the connection. That doesn't give you implicit permission to use it.
I love how asking to use something of someone else has become such a problem for people. It boggles the mind. If I have a faucet on my property that's outside my house, that means it's implicitly allowed to be used by all?
You want to talk about respect, how about you secure your router so it doesn't show up on a hundred peoples computers who live in the region.
My network shows up whether it's secured or not. Oh, and it can't show up on "hundreds" of people's computers, it doesn't have the signal strenght.
How about if you do configure it so that everyone has their own networks polluted with signals from your establishment that are not secured, we send the police around to your house, just like a noise complaint?
Securing it slows it down; perhaps I want higher wireless speeds. My choice though isnt' the same as giving the world permission to use services I'm paying for. You don't know if my internet connection is metered or not. The signal, unlike noise, isn't interfering with anyone. You're not stopped from using networks for which you've previously gotten permission to use.
That sounds a good deal more reasonable than having illegal icons on everyones computers that you put there and then charging them when they click em.
Why is it more reasonable than asking for permission to use something which YOU know you don't own?
No, a house is designed to provide shelter; a door provides ACCESS to said shelter.
BTW, did you ask CmdrTaco if you're allowed to access his webserver? You didn't? How come you're posting? From a technological perspective, a web server responding to anonymous requests with data is the same as a router responding to anonymous requests with a connection. They are designed to operate that way.
You need to take extra steps to make a webserver public; a public webservers ONLY purpose is to serve content to the public. That's the opposite of an AP, which CANNOT selectively broadcast it's signal to certain devices. It has to broadcast to everything that can hear it. That doesn't mean you're allowed to use it though. If we're talking about an ssid that says STARBUCKS, assume you can use it if it's not secured. If it says LINKSYS and it's coming from someone's home, asume you CAN'T use it, even if it's not secured.
Are you free to walk into any Best Buy? Yes, because it's a commercial venture. You can only be accused of trespass if they explicitly ask you to leave. The opposite is true of private homes; you're trespassing UNLESS you got explicit permission.
Do you see now the difference between a webserver owned by a company and a private home's AP? Although both properties are owned by private parties, the fact that one is commercial and one is residential changes the rules.
I bought a router, plugged it in, and it starts broadcasting as Linksys. I go to my computer and there are 3 unsecured Linksys APs visible. How do I know which one is mine? If I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?
If you see that, you can then configure a different ssid. How do you tell which one to use? The one where you have 100% signal if you're 5 feet away from your AP. You also seem to miss the part of the law that says you're purposefully using someone else's connection without their permission. In your last question, no, you accidently choose the wrong one, although I just gave you ways to figure out the correct one to use.
I go visit my next door neighbor and he says "Yeah, I have an unsecured Linksys router. Go ahead and use it, that's what it's there for!" How do I tell which one of those 3 I have permission for? Again, if I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?
Again, you go close to the AP and you should have 100% signal strenght. You then know which one to use.
Let's simplify. There is only one Linksys AP. I have permission from the owner. A 2nd person sets up an AP the same way - my computer will automatically connect, and will look the same to me. I will have absolutely no idea I'm using one I don't have permission to use. Do I now go to jail? For something someone else did?
In that case, you didn't purposefully use the wrong AP, so the law doesn't apply to you. Did you even read the summary?
What you fail to realize is that the AP MUST broadcast to work. So you can't hide the fact that an AP exists. There are also many reasonable ways to protect my property, but even if I don't do any of them, you are STILL required to get permission.
An inanimate object cannot give permission, only the owner can do that.
If you actually read all the way through that, you'd see that opinions of GenXers changed as they got older. Whereas we were seen as lazy at first, it turns out that we had "entrepenural spirit" and "athleticism." In other words, we changed as we grew up. That's not what's being said about Gen Y though.
It's not all just whining either. You may want to check out Wiki on your generation. Note your generation is being defined as not leaving home, instead STILL relying on your parents, among other things.
It's interesting to note though that Gen X was initally defined as apathetic, slackers, etc. Here's my take; when we were growing up, it was largely true. I didn't do well in school because I really cared (not until later, anyway), I did well because it came easy to me. I did it though because I felt I had to. My first few years of college my grades would have been even better.
Whether or not your generation turns around is still a pretty large question mark, but given the complaints as you're entering the workforce, it doesn't look like you will. By the time we entered the workforce, we did turn many of our negatives around.
If it's too much of a bother to ask, then don't use it. Seriously, you're saying because it's a pain you should just be allowed to use someone else's resources?
If you can't ask me if you may enter my house, because you 1) aren't allowed to tresspass to begin with and 2) I never seem to come out, or am not home, does that mean you CAN just walk into my house?
What about borrowing my garden house, which is sitting in my driveway? Or my bike? Can you use those because they are on my property, and you can't find me to ask?
True, but there is not a clear violation here. You have not damaged their property (if we are only talking about access, and not, for example, gleaning private information off another computer on the same WLAN), and have not done anything outside of the way in which the equipment was designed.
There's not? If you found someone rummaging through your car when you had left it unlocked, would you not be upset even though you didn't lock the doors? The harm is the violation of privacy and lack of respect for someone else's property rights.
Flawed analogy. First off, there is no physical presence inside your home. Second, there is a 2-way communication happening here, not just my computer "eavesdropping" on your network. A more fitting analogy would be if you didn't want anyone to talk to your nubile teenage daughter (let's say of legal age for the sake of further argument), but didn't make it expressly clear. So, if I stood at the edge of your property and chatted her up on the balcony without your knowledge, we would be in the same situation. I might have committed an affront to you, but not to your daughter, and not to the law.
It doesn't matter if you're physically there or not; if you hack into someone's computer you're misusing their property. Your analogy is flawed in that an AP is not a living being that can make a choice. Its a device that functions according to specifications, just like your car. The fact that the specifications allow you to open my car door when it is unlocked does not give you permission to enter my car for any reason. You have still trespassed.
And that's what this law is meant to do; to make it absolutely clear that you MUST secure the owner's permission to use his network. Really, why is that a bad thing?
Let me ask you this: if this is the case, how can I tell people that they are actually allowed to use my unsecured wireless access point? For a house, a simple sign that says "Anyone, please enter" is enough. How does that work for the wireless router?
Simple. You ASK the owner of the wireless network.
The ssid is not a "sign." It's you going down the street and seeing my house on my property. If you can't reasonably figure out my intent, you err on the side of caution and you get my explicit permission. If you can't get my permission, assume you can't use it.
Personal responsibility: The onus is on the owner of the equipment to RTFM. TFM will tell the user to enable WEP or WPA-PSK.
Or Personal responsibility: The onus is on the owner of the equipment to [lock his car]. TFM [for the car] will tell the user [how to lock and unlock the car].
Hmm... nope. The onus is on YOU to respect other people's properties and services.
Broadcasting an SSID and not locking the network (through MAC filtering, WEP, WPA-PSK, etc.) is actively inviting other people to connect to the WAP. In fact, that is the intended purpose of a WAP in the first place!
No, the intended purpose of the WAP is to allow the OWNER to connect to the WAP. Not you.
. . . and somehow this is being clumped in with computer misuse and unauthorized access laws? How the fuck does this happen, when the user is broacasting an invitation to connect to an open network? Hello, McFly? Anyone home? Come on McFly!
The same way you can't just walk into my home or evasdrop on my phone calls if I'm using a cordless phone.
The radio waves are communicating with my property, which in turn uses services for which I paid. I pay the electric bill, which gets converted into radio waves.. so yes, they would be my property. I just chose to change the energy from one form to another.. that doesn't give you any rights to it.
They would have the same level of wages, except they are here ILLEGALLY. Is it really so much to ask that you come into our country legally through the set of proceedures we have in place?
No, it's not granting permission, it's just doing what it's been set at the factory to do. Unless you get explicit permission from the network owner, you should assume you need to stay off the network.
Legally speaking, your kid is not allowed to invite anyone into your home. After all, your child doesn't own your house, does he?
Just because there is no outrage doesn't mean there aren't people that would be upset if they knew someone was using their network. If I leave my house unlocked, and people are entering it without my knowledge, I would be pretty upset to find out that someone did in fact enter my house. Especially if it was through a back door I didn't even know existed.
Why don't we do this as a society? Don't use anything which belongs to someone else without their permission? Sure would make the world a bit nicer.
Sorry, but my opinion is based on exerience. For some reason, I (and my generation seemlingly) was able to adapt to work environments without incident. I don't recall similar complaints about Gen Xers. Others seem to agree. Which was nice, because I was always told we were lazy slackers.
As far as people are the same; no, not really. Only 50 years ago it was mostly unheard of for women to have a job at all, certainly nothing like the positions they fill today. In other words, societies DO change. Unless you want to argue we have the same society as Babelon?
And as far as health insurance. See my post above. Especially if you are young...try to get your own private insurance...high deductible, and open a HSA to max out each year to pay for your medical needs. If you're normal and reasonable healthy, all you really need is catastrophic coverage.
Except of course when said catastrophy does occur, you're fucked because you choose a high deductable plan. You're fooling yourself if you think people will tuck money away to cover it.
Really? I hate the silver spoon assholes myself. Then again, I'm a Gen-Y who had to work my way up and had a job at age 14.
Well, I'm only a Gen-Xer, but it seems that you are an exception to the rule when it comes to Gen Y.
See parent post - when you can be laid off at any time, when your work doesn't give a crap about you, when the employer is constantly trying to find new and inventive ways to screw you for health insurance or even for basic wages, why should you be "loyal" to them? How about when I watched my dad, a "loyal" employee for three decades, booted out the door after his company was acquired with the equivalent of a "don't let the door hit you on the way out"???
This I agree with. I never have known company loyalty, I survived a layoff only because I was a better value than the employees they let go.
I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.. but don't fool yourself, Gen Y seems more sliver-spooned. Don't feel too bad though, the current crop of kids seem even worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Respect? When I choose to set my router in a way that allows net access to the people using the chairs and tables in the courtyard, I don't want them knocking on my door all the time asking me if they really are allowed to do that, especially at times when I'm already asleep or busy doing something else. That would be very disrespectfully.
YOu can post a real sign on or near your door.
The SSID IS the "sign" of the network. The only sign on a wireless network that has any chance of working can be a wireless signal on the network itself.
No, read the specs. The ssid ONLY identifies the network and distingishes one network from another. No where does it say anything about authorization. If you like, change your SSID to something that says "ANY1ALLOWEDTOUSE." Then your ssid expresses permission.
The only solution is to get the router configured properly. For consumer devices, maybe a BIG, RED Private/Public flip switch on the side of the box, that only allows non-secured access when it's on the "Public" setting.
It is properly configured. I may choose to run unencrypted because that speeds the connection. That doesn't give you implicit permission to use it.
I love how asking to use something of someone else has become such a problem for people. It boggles the mind. If I have a faucet on my property that's outside my house, that means it's implicitly allowed to be used by all?
You want to talk about respect, how about you secure your router so it doesn't show up on a hundred peoples computers who live in the region.
My network shows up whether it's secured or not. Oh, and it can't show up on "hundreds" of people's computers, it doesn't have the signal strenght.
How about if you do configure it so that everyone has their own networks polluted with signals from your establishment that are not secured, we send the police around to your house, just like a noise complaint?
Securing it slows it down; perhaps I want higher wireless speeds. My choice though isnt' the same as giving the world permission to use services I'm paying for. You don't know if my internet connection is metered or not. The signal, unlike noise, isn't interfering with anyone. You're not stopped from using networks for which you've previously gotten permission to use.
That sounds a good deal more reasonable than having illegal icons on everyones computers that you put there and then charging them when they click em.
Why is it more reasonable than asking for permission to use something which YOU know you don't own?
No, a house is designed to provide shelter; a door provides ACCESS to said shelter.
BTW, did you ask CmdrTaco if you're allowed to access his webserver? You didn't? How come you're posting? From a technological perspective, a web server responding to anonymous requests with data is the same as a router responding to anonymous requests with a connection. They are designed to operate that way.
You need to take extra steps to make a webserver public; a public webservers ONLY purpose is to serve content to the public. That's the opposite of an AP, which CANNOT selectively broadcast it's signal to certain devices. It has to broadcast to everything that can hear it. That doesn't mean you're allowed to use it though. If we're talking about an ssid that says STARBUCKS, assume you can use it if it's not secured. If it says LINKSYS and it's coming from someone's home, asume you CAN'T use it, even if it's not secured.
Are you free to walk into any Best Buy? Yes, because it's a commercial venture. You can only be accused of trespass if they explicitly ask you to leave. The opposite is true of private homes; you're trespassing UNLESS you got explicit permission.
Do you see now the difference between a webserver owned by a company and a private home's AP? Although both properties are owned by private parties, the fact that one is commercial and one is residential changes the rules.
I bought a router, plugged it in, and it starts broadcasting as Linksys. I go to my computer and there are 3 unsecured Linksys APs visible. How do I know which one is mine? If I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?
If you see that, you can then configure a different ssid. How do you tell which one to use? The one where you have 100% signal if you're 5 feet away from your AP. You also seem to miss the part of the law that says you're purposefully using someone else's connection without their permission. In your last question, no, you accidently choose the wrong one, although I just gave you ways to figure out the correct one to use.
I go visit my next door neighbor and he says "Yeah, I have an unsecured Linksys router. Go ahead and use it, that's what it's there for!" How do I tell which one of those 3 I have permission for? Again, if I pick the wrong one do I really need to go to jail?
Again, you go close to the AP and you should have 100% signal strenght. You then know which one to use.
Let's simplify. There is only one Linksys AP. I have permission from the owner. A 2nd person sets up an AP the same way - my computer will automatically connect, and will look the same to me. I will have absolutely no idea I'm using one I don't have permission to use. Do I now go to jail? For something someone else did?
In that case, you didn't purposefully use the wrong AP, so the law doesn't apply to you. Did you even read the summary?
What you fail to realize is that the AP MUST broadcast to work. So you can't hide the fact that an AP exists. There are also many reasonable ways to protect my property, but even if I don't do any of them, you are STILL required to get permission.
An inanimate object cannot give permission, only the owner can do that.
If you actually read all the way through that, you'd see that opinions of GenXers changed as they got older. Whereas we were seen as lazy at first, it turns out that we had "entrepenural spirit" and "athleticism." In other words, we changed as we grew up. That's not what's being said about Gen Y though.
It's not all just whining either. You may want to check out Wiki on your generation. Note your generation is being defined as not leaving home, instead STILL relying on your parents, among other things.
It's interesting to note though that Gen X was initally defined as apathetic, slackers, etc. Here's my take; when we were growing up, it was largely true. I didn't do well in school because I really cared (not until later, anyway), I did well because it came easy to me. I did it though because I felt I had to. My first few years of college my grades would have been even better.
Whether or not your generation turns around is still a pretty large question mark, but given the complaints as you're entering the workforce, it doesn't look like you will. By the time we entered the workforce, we did turn many of our negatives around.
If it's too much of a bother to ask, then don't use it. Seriously, you're saying because it's a pain you should just be allowed to use someone else's resources?
If you can't ask me if you may enter my house, because you 1) aren't allowed to tresspass to begin with and 2) I never seem to come out, or am not home, does that mean you CAN just walk into my house?
What about borrowing my garden house, which is sitting in my driveway? Or my bike? Can you use those because they are on my property, and you can't find me to ask?
Ok, find me articles that state GenXers were unusually difficult to integrate into the workforce.
Oh, and your assertion that GenY ISN'T a pain is also anecdotal. Just thought you'd like to know.
True, but you didn't have to look like Bond to be able to do it in the 50s ;-)
Ya, it does. http://www.netstumbler.org/f49/disabling-ssid-broadcast-slows-bandwidth-11738/
Especially if the homeowner has more than one WAP to cover his property.
True, but there is not a clear violation here. You have not damaged their property (if we are only talking about access, and not, for example, gleaning private information off another computer on the same WLAN), and have not done anything outside of the way in which the equipment was designed.
There's not? If you found someone rummaging through your car when you had left it unlocked, would you not be upset even though you didn't lock the doors? The harm is the violation of privacy and lack of respect for someone else's property rights.
Flawed analogy. First off, there is no physical presence inside your home. Second, there is a 2-way communication happening here, not just my computer "eavesdropping" on your network. A more fitting analogy would be if you didn't want anyone to talk to your nubile teenage daughter (let's say of legal age for the sake of further argument), but didn't make it expressly clear. So, if I stood at the edge of your property and chatted her up on the balcony without your knowledge, we would be in the same situation. I might have committed an affront to you, but not to your daughter, and not to the law.
It doesn't matter if you're physically there or not; if you hack into someone's computer you're misusing their property. Your analogy is flawed in that an AP is not a living being that can make a choice. Its a device that functions according to specifications, just like your car. The fact that the specifications allow you to open my car door when it is unlocked does not give you permission to enter my car for any reason. You have still trespassed.
And that's what this law is meant to do; to make it absolutely clear that you MUST secure the owner's permission to use his network. Really, why is that a bad thing?
Let me ask you this: if this is the case, how can I tell people that they are actually allowed to use my unsecured wireless access point? For a house, a simple sign that says "Anyone, please enter" is enough. How does that work for the wireless router?
Simple. You ASK the owner of the wireless network.
The ssid is not a "sign." It's you going down the street and seeing my house on my property. If you can't reasonably figure out my intent, you err on the side of caution and you get my explicit permission. If you can't get my permission, assume you can't use it.
It's simple respect.
Is your post really meant for me? Because I happen to agree with you..
Yes, and they wore miniskirts and you could give them a nice slap on the ass to say "job well done!" Ahh the 50s...
Personal responsibility: The onus is on the owner of the equipment to RTFM. TFM will tell the user to enable WEP or WPA-PSK.
Or Personal responsibility: The onus is on the owner of the equipment to [lock his car]. TFM [for the car] will tell the user [how to lock and unlock the car].
Hmm... nope. The onus is on YOU to respect other people's properties and services.
Broadcasting an SSID and not locking the network (through MAC filtering, WEP, WPA-PSK, etc.) is actively inviting other people to connect to the WAP. In fact, that is the intended purpose of a WAP in the first place!
No, the intended purpose of the WAP is to allow the OWNER to connect to the WAP. Not you.
. . . and somehow this is being clumped in with computer misuse and unauthorized access laws? How the fuck does this happen, when the user is broacasting an invitation to connect to an open network? Hello, McFly? Anyone home? Come on McFly!
The same way you can't just walk into my home or evasdrop on my phone calls if I'm using a cordless phone.
A DHCP request is not permission, any more than taking the key in my fake rock is permission to enter my house.
The radio waves are communicating with my property, which in turn uses services for which I paid. I pay the electric bill, which gets converted into radio waves.. so yes, they would be my property. I just chose to change the energy from one form to another.. that doesn't give you any rights to it.
If you CHOOSE to plead guilty, for whatever reason, that's your own problem. When charged with anything ALWAYS FIGHT.
They would have the same level of wages, except they are here ILLEGALLY. Is it really so much to ask that you come into our country legally through the set of proceedures we have in place?
No, it's not granting permission, it's just doing what it's been set at the factory to do. Unless you get explicit permission from the network owner, you should assume you need to stay off the network.
Legally speaking, your kid is not allowed to invite anyone into your home. After all, your child doesn't own your house, does he?
Just because there is no outrage doesn't mean there aren't people that would be upset if they knew someone was using their network. If I leave my house unlocked, and people are entering it without my knowledge, I would be pretty upset to find out that someone did in fact enter my house. Especially if it was through a back door I didn't even know existed.
Why don't we do this as a society? Don't use anything which belongs to someone else without their permission? Sure would make the world a bit nicer.
Sorry, but my opinion is based on exerience. For some reason, I (and my generation seemlingly) was able to adapt to work environments without incident. I don't recall similar complaints about Gen Xers. Others seem to agree. Which was nice, because I was always told we were lazy slackers.
As far as people are the same; no, not really. Only 50 years ago it was mostly unheard of for women to have a job at all, certainly nothing like the positions they fill today. In other words, societies DO change. Unless you want to argue we have the same society as Babelon?
The courts, which are supposed to represent the people, who are the ones that demand a fair election, right?
The terms are irrelevent, and if the court finds otherwise, we need to replace the court because they have rendered themselves irrelevent.
Fine. Fire all your developers if your really think what you do trumps what they do.
And as far as health insurance. See my post above. Especially if you are young...try to get your own private insurance...high deductible, and open a HSA to max out each year to pay for your medical needs. If you're normal and reasonable healthy, all you really need is catastrophic coverage.
Except of course when said catastrophy does occur, you're fucked because you choose a high deductable plan. You're fooling yourself if you think people will tuck money away to cover it.
Really? I hate the silver spoon assholes myself. Then again, I'm a Gen-Y who had to work my way up and had a job at age 14.
Well, I'm only a Gen-Xer, but it seems that you are an exception to the rule when it comes to Gen Y.
See parent post - when you can be laid off at any time, when your work doesn't give a crap about you, when the employer is constantly trying to find new and inventive ways to screw you for health insurance or even for basic wages, why should you be "loyal" to them? How about when I watched my dad, a "loyal" employee for three decades, booted out the door after his company was acquired with the equivalent of a "don't let the door hit you on the way out"???
This I agree with. I never have known company loyalty, I survived a layoff only because I was a better value than the employees they let go.
I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.. but don't fool yourself, Gen Y seems more sliver-spooned. Don't feel too bad though, the current crop of kids seem even worse.