chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk wrote:
>Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote:
>> By setting up an unsecure default network I consider I'm inviting J.
>> Random Hacker to use it.
>
>Surely it would be better to make it as explicit as possible that you
>intend for the network to be available to all and sundry? Perhaps you
>could use a SSID like "OpenAccess", "FreeForYouToUse", or "Welcome"?

He is inviting only J. Random Hacker to use it.

You are inviting the *law* *abiding* *public*!

Subtle difference... ;-)

Another, even more subtle difference, is that what *he*
considers may not be what any given law enforcement agency
considers. Only a few test cases can differentiate the two.

In his one specific case might well mean that nobody will be
convicted (even if they might get arrested and spend a night or
two in jail and have all their computers seized for a few
months) for accessing *his* unsecured default network. But in
general accessing such networks might, in addition to the arrest
and seizure, follow with a conviction and serious jail time.

That may or may not happen to any particular person, but win or
lose, *I* don't want to be the test case...

Hence "unsecured default" is not what *I* consider an "open"
system or an invitation. An unsecured network with some other
indication, which the SSID may or may not provide, is required.

For example, the "OpenAccess" SSID would be. Likewise any
likely commercial name where it is *clear* that they might want
to allow any user to access it *and* that they have the
expertise to block users too. For example, I parked next to a
Hilton Hotel once and downloaded a couple files off the Internet
to my laptop through their open wireless access. I've also
connected to a wireless at such places as Burger King.

On the other hand, if the SSID is "LinkSys", I wouldn't touch it
with your ten foot antenna!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com