Posted on 01/07/2008 10:46:22 AM PST by SubGeniusX
Then why is your router broadcasting its name, telling everyone it's unlocked, and actively handing out access codes to anyone who asks?
Which proves that the UK is an insane nation of serfs - so what?
Not since Sheryl Crow set me straight..
Let’s say I have a house on a river and no fence. So if people go into my yard to fish without permission they’re not trespassing? No, I paid extra for a house with that location, and the right to fish on it is mine.
Likewise, I’m paying for broadband, a WiFi router and the electricity to run it. It’s network trespass, although admittedly the nature of WiFi and the automatic connection mechanisms of operating systems means that people can accidentally trespass.
I'll begin this statement by noting that I have a wireless router that I suppose isn't secure. I don't recall ever "securing" it and unless the instruction manual specifically told me how to secure it, I'm not.
But to answer your question, it seems to me that the primary difference between the two is that if someone comes into my house and uses my stuff, it typically is depleted in some way, but that's not really true for using some one else's wireless. For instance, if my neighbor walks over to my house and drinks the can of Dr. Pepper that I have in the fridge, when he drinks it, it's gone. I don't have my can of Dr. Pepper any longer. But with my wifi, it's different. My neighbor can use my Internet and I've still got Internet--assuming, of course, my neighbor isn't doing any sort of Internet usage that is out of the ordinary.
It seems sort of similar to how if I play my stereo at loud volumes, I could complain that my neighbors are listening to my Journey cd without paying for it. Maybe they are--but what do I care?
By it’s design, the wi-fi is broadcast to anyone that can use it. Unless a person puts a sign out front that says it’s ok to come in and take stuff, it is considered private property.
If you play your music loud, does everone have to cover their ears so that they are not stealing from you? Does everyone in earshot have to pony up to the artist or record company?
I finally went to my neighbor and told him to secure his router. Stories about people surfing kiddie porn or downloading music using his identity helped convince him to do it.
The proper comparison is to a TV set in a bar tuned to the Big Game. It's intended to draw in customers. The bartender could throw out anyone he sees strolling in and watches the game fro some extended time X without buying a drink. He would not be able to arrest such a person for trespass unless he became abusive and refused to move along when requested.
Excellent analogy. Receiving public transmissions should not be illegal as long as they are not secured. All the individual is doing is receiving a signal like tv, radio. As long as transmissions are not secured it should be LEGAL.
Sounds to me like the owner is transmitting an invitation to connect.
There are so many free, available wi-fi connections available, that even a small amount of security will make them try one of the other signals. We are not talking about highly motivated people here...they tend to to follow the "path of least resistance" and any effort you can make to make your path less easy is a step in the right direction.
“Stories about people surfing kiddie porn or downloading music using his identity helped convince him to do it.”
But he would have been perfectly within his rights not to secure it, right?
If somebody runs a network and WANTS it to be secure,
they should spend some time and energy to MAKE it secure.
If I can drive by and log on, then some Islamic terrorist type can do it too.
Trouble is, people buy the stuff and ask the salesman and he says “Well, just plug it in, and it should work...” like it’s just a toaster or something.
They could just as easily make it a crime to have an unencrypted network.
What if they were downloading child porn, and the Feds came after you? Your ISP directed them to your connection.
Can you prove YOU did not download the porn?
Or music, or DVDs, etc.
I would want my WiFi protected for these reasons.
Comments??? I have a wireless router in the box, and haven’t hooked it up yet due to my ignorance in these areas.
But my real point is that there is a full spectrum of transmissions in the air at any time, and just because you have the ability to intercept any of them doesn't inherently give you the right to respond to ANY of them which has been the premise of the argument from the outset.
It's like justifying riding on transportation with paying for your ticket, after all, the bus/train/plane was going there anyway.
WPA keys are not easy to break unless they are weak to begin with. Any literature on the topic specifies that WPA’s vulnerabilities rest in the use of weak passwords. Most WPA schemes use some sort of built-in randomizer, making the keys strong. Script kiddies can crack weak passwords with freely available software. Good passwords, however, are safe.
WPA keys are not easy to break unless they are weak to begin with. Any literature on the topic specifies that WPA’s vulnerabilities rest in the use of weak passwords. Most WPA schemes use some sort of built-in randomizer, making the keys strong. Script kiddies can crack weak passwords with freely available software. Good passwords, however, are safe.
So the victim is the neighbor whose connection has been slowed. He's victim Numero Uno. The ISP doesn't figure into it. And yet, they get first mention.
You know, if the ISP is that worried, they should go around to their clients and offer free security services to scramble or protect those signals. But they won't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.