On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:43:45 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net>
wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:08:10 +0100, The Todal in message
><news:3krljuFvksnvU1@individual.net> wrote:
>
>> I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
>> my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>> inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>>
>> Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
>> law, then:
>>
>
>About bloody time!
>
>I have been arguing that this was against the law for years, and always
>get met with the response "where is the case law then".
>
>And it isn't a way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of
>the law. It has to be done knowingly before it is illegal.
>
>When you are sitting in a car piggybacking on whatever open network you can
>find, that is obviously knowingly accessing without authorisation.
Not necessarily.
I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
guy does exactly the same thing
Its one way of spreading internet availablilty in small communities
where not everyone wants to invest in their own ISP account, although
I'm not sure whether the guys doing the "providing" are breaking the
T&CS of their own contract with their ISP.
It seems to me it would only be an offence if the person hijacking the
connection *knew* that their access was unauthorised. If a wireless
network is wide open from a security point of view, I wonder whether
you could mount a defence on the basis that you assumed it was done
intentionally (which, as I say above does happen), and had no reason
to assume otherwise. As I understand it, a prosecution would have to
prove that you knew it *wasn't* authorised, which isn't immediately
obvious if the security is wide open or non-existent
On 28 Jul 2005 12:20, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote:
>and there was a time occasionally the newspapers would tell you where
>there was free wireless broadband to be had.
When a London council sets up a free, public access, service for anyone with
a suitably equipped (wireless-enabled) device, then yes, one can get a mixed
message... On Islington's web site: "The Technology Mile runs from Highbury
Corner to the Angel along Upper Street and provides free wireless internet
access to local businesses, residents and visitors to Islington. It is the
largest free access zone in London and supports the A1 Borough project."
--
runbox.com - 1000 MB of mail storage and 100 MB for files...
30 day free trial... <http://web.vfm-deals.com/runbox/>
Can accept mail for your domain and apply filtering...
Point your MX record to mx.runbox.com and use POP/IMAP...
In article <fakhe11fng8aa2dspnmlk8hmevl931rabt@4ax.com>, Paul Harper wrote:
> >> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
> >> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
> >
> >Does this mean that you also think anyone who is careless enough to leave their
> >front door unlocked "deserves all they get" if they are burgled? Do you think
> >thieves should not be prosecuted if they steal from people who have not taken
> >adequate precautions against this?
>
> Your analogy and conclusion are both flawed.
>
> Having an unsecured and fully-announced wireless network is like
> leaving your door not only unlocked, but wide open with a "please help
> yourself" sign outside. In such an instance, I definitely have no
> sympathy.
Not quite the same. It's easy for anyone to understand an open door, but less easy,
particularly for a novice, to understand computer networking. In either case, theft
is still theft, whether it's easy or difficult for the thief to accomplish.
And where is the "please help yourself" sign? Please don't say that the mere
existence of a wireless access point that *can* be accessed amounts to an
invitation to do so. You might as well say that parking my car outside is an
invitation for somebody to scratch it - because they can - or that leaving my
windows without bars on them is an invitation for somebody to break them - because
they can - or perhaps that leaving my house without a 24 hour armed guard is an
invitation for somebody to set fire to it - because thay can - but where would this
line of reasoning end?
> Also, you assume that because I have no sympathy with the "victims", I
> think that the people taking advantage of the blind stupidity of those
> with open networks shouldn't be prosecuted. Where did I say that?
You didn't say it. I didn't say that you said it. I was *asking* if it reflected
what you thought because it seemed to follow from what you *had* said. Thank you
for clarifying the matter.
In article <37lhe1hjevahbveg6ek37jc3fmkibms9tr@4ax.com>, Bigbrian wrote:
> I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
> connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
> guy does exactly the same thing
>[...]
> It seems to me it would only be an offence if the person hijacking the
> connection *knew* that their access was unauthorised.
Agreed, but is it right to assume wireless networks are public property
unless otherwise indicated?
Think of an open door. Would you assume it meant anyone was invited to
enter unless otherwise indicated, or would you assume it was private
property unless otherwise indicated? Even if you did think it was
acceptable to enter without asking (e.g. into a shop), would you then
assume the right to take things or use things without asking?
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:53:50 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>In article <37lhe1hjevahbveg6ek37jc3fmkibms9tr@4ax.com>, Bigbrian wrote:
>> I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
>> connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
>> guy does exactly the same thing
>>[...]
>> It seems to me it would only be an offence if the person hijacking the
>> connection *knew* that their access was unauthorised.
>
>Agreed, but is it right to assume wireless networks are public property
>unless otherwise indicated?
>
That would probably depend on how widely available actual public
property networks become
On 28 Jul 2005 06:42:02 -0500, Mr X in message
<news:UG$ZkDAQOM6CFwhP@privacy.net> wrote:
> In article <nqwueimqnjjb$.13l3gd1vql5v1$.dlg@40tude.net>, Alex Heney
> <me8@privacy.net> writes
>
>>It means that "casual" browsers won't see it at all, so there is no danger
>>of them connecting to it. It most certainly does not make it difficult for
>>them to avoid it.
>
> If a wireless router can't "see" the SSID is there a danger it will
> plonk its carrier onto the same channel as the SSID it can't "see"?
> I think this is what the other poster is meaning.
I don't think that should matter, so long as the SSIDs are different. It
may reduce the available bandwidth a bit, but it won't leave you connected
to the wrong network.
What I thought he meant was that if the SSID is visible, then you will see
it in the list, and can tell your PC not to connect to it.
But if it isn't, AND the SSID happens to be one you have connected to
before, then your PC may connect to it without it ever showing in the list
to be de-selected.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
A man needs a good memory after he has lied.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:53:50 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>In article <fakhe11fng8aa2dspnmlk8hmevl931rabt@4ax.com>, Paul Harper wrote:
>> >> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
>> >> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
>> >
>> >Does this mean that you also think anyone who is careless enough to leave their
>> >front door unlocked "deserves all they get" if they are burgled? Do you think
>> >thieves should not be prosecuted if they steal from people who have not taken
>> >adequate precautions against this?
>>
>> Your analogy and conclusion are both flawed.
>>
>> Having an unsecured and fully-announced wireless network is like
>> leaving your door not only unlocked, but wide open with a "please help
>> yourself" sign outside. In such an instance, I definitely have no
>> sympathy.
>
>Not quite the same. It's easy for anyone to understand an open door, but less easy,
>particularly for a novice, to understand computer networking. In either case, theft
>is still theft, whether it's easy or difficult for the thief to accomplish.
>
>And where is the "please help yourself" sign?
In the Wireless Network connections window.
>Please don't say that the mere
>existence of a wireless access point that *can* be accessed amounts to an
>invitation to do so. You might as well say that parking my car outside is an
>invitation for somebody to scratch it - because they can - or that leaving my
>windows without bars on them is an invitation for somebody to break them - because
>they can - or perhaps that leaving my house without a 24 hour armed guard is an
>invitation for somebody to set fire to it - because thay can - but where would this
>line of reasoning end?
It shouldn't have started because it's irrelevant.
The open invitation is on anyone's "connect" dialog box when they
fire-up their wireless networking. Connecting through doesn't
specifically require a deliberately malicious intent, merely
ignorance. All your examples require malicious intent. My analogy is
still the most accurate one.
>> Also, you assume that because I have no sympathy with the "victims", I
>> think that the people taking advantage of the blind stupidity of those
>> with open networks shouldn't be prosecuted. Where did I say that?
>
>You didn't say it. I didn't say that you said it. I was *asking* if it reflected
>what you thought because it seemed to follow from what you *had* said. Thank you
>for clarifying the matter.
I didn't think that I had.
Paul.
--
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's insult.
.. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:53:50 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>Think of an open door. Would you assume it meant anyone was invited to
>enter unless otherwise indicated, or would you assume it was private
>property unless otherwise indicated?
An open door on your PC is private. When you put an open door onto
someone else's PC, they're already half-way in.
Paul.
--
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's insult.
.. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
"The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:3krnpkFughvgU1@individual.net...
>
> The suggestion is, though, that if you go looking for free wireless
> connections you are likely to be breaking the law as soon as you make a
> connection to someone's service.
So, I visit my local Starbucks expecting there to be a free wi-fi
connection (because I read somewhere in a newspaper that
there is such a service). I connect to the strongest signal and
it happens to be the office next door.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:52:29 +0100, bigbrian <harry8611@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
>connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
>guy does exactly the same thing
>
>http://tinyurl.com/a7rsq
>
> Its one way of spreading internet availablilty in small communities
>where not everyone wants to invest in their own ISP account, although
>I'm not sure whether the guys doing the "providing" are breaking the
>T&CS of their own contract with their ISP.
>
>It seems to me it would only be an offence if the person hijacking the
>connection *knew* that their access was unauthorised. If a wireless
>network is wide open from a security point of view, I wonder whether
>you could mount a defence on the basis that you assumed it was done
>intentionally (which, as I say above does happen), and had no reason
>to assume otherwise. As I understand it, a prosecution would have to
>prove that you knew it *wasn't* authorised, which isn't immediately
>obvious if the security is wide open or non-existent
>
>Brian
>
Surely he is mad? The threat to his liberty from people using his
connection for copyright/illegal porn is a real one.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:16:15 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>In article <6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com>, Paul Harper wrote:
>> I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
>> their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
>Does this mean that you also think anyone who is careless enough to leave their
>front door unlocked "deserves all they get" if they are burgled? Do you think
>thieves should not be prosecuted if they steal from people who have not taken
>adequate precautions against this?
That's a either a gloriously flawed analogy, or a nonsensical
question. Using a publically-available wireless network is more akin
to someone on the street at night reading a newspaper by the light
from your windows. Theft of light? If you don't want it to happen, put
up curtains.
>Personally I prefer the old-fashioned morality wherein theft is wrong, the
>wrongness being defined on the basis of who the stolen items belong to, and
>nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is easy or difficult for the thief to
>take them.
Fair enough. But what's been stolen? Where's the intention to
permanently deprive?
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:57:27 +0100, blah <J@sifjis.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:52:29 +0100, bigbrian <harry8611@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
>>connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
>>guy does exactly the same thing
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/a7rsq
>>
>> Its one way of spreading internet availablilty in small communities
>>where not everyone wants to invest in their own ISP account, although
>>I'm not sure whether the guys doing the "providing" are breaking the
>>T&CS of their own contract with their ISP.
>>
>>It seems to me it would only be an offence if the person hijacking the
>>connection *knew* that their access was unauthorised. If a wireless
>>network is wide open from a security point of view, I wonder whether
>>you could mount a defence on the basis that you assumed it was done
>>intentionally (which, as I say above does happen), and had no reason
>>to assume otherwise. As I understand it, a prosecution would have to
>>prove that you knew it *wasn't* authorised, which isn't immediately
>>obvious if the security is wide open or non-existent
>>
>>Brian
>>
>
>Surely he is mad? The threat to his liberty from people using his
>connection for copyright/illegal porn is a real one.
I assume that, while people can access his connection, he's happy that
he has sufficient security over access to his hard drives that no one
can see them and plant stuff on them.
Or did you mean the traceability of his IP address from someone access
illegal material? His public statement about the wide openness of his
connection *ought* to be a pretty effective defence, but I appreciate
it comes at the cost of "pay to play" it. He might well have been
without his PC (and his front door) for some time before he gets to
make his case
> to someone on the street at night reading a newspaper by the light
> from your windows. Theft of light? If you don't want it to happen, put
> up curtains.
Similar but not quite the same because in doing so, reading the paper
does not impact on the other light in the house. Using network
bandwidth does.
Don't confuse the propagation of a radio wave with the data that it
carries. This whole issue of "well the RF was in my back yard" just
isn't the end of the story.
> Fair enough. But what's been stolen? Where's the intention to
> permanently deprive?
Similar to joyriding. Joyriding in a car isn't theft because there's no
intention to permanently deprive the owner, just go out and have a good
thrash in someone elses car with your mates. It never seems to become
theft when the car is set fire to either for some strange reason.
This will run and run and there's no point thinking up cute analogy
after analogy because it's for the legal folk to kick it around and just
like any other legal situation, it's the one with the best argument that
wins, nothing more.
Prosecution: "but my client had WEP enabled"
Defence: "well we all know that WEP is dead and can be cracked in 10
minutes, your client was negligent in not following network security
practice and for not knowing that wireless is by its nature insecure."
etc etc etc.
| >I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
| >connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
| >guy does exactly the same thing
| >
| >http://tinyurl.com/a7rsq
|
| Surely he is mad? The threat to his liberty from people using his
| connection for copyright/illegal porn is a real one.
Why? He's no more liable for the actions of people who use his WiFi node
than an ISP is liable for the actions of its customers.
Indeed, he's acting as an ISP himself.
I suppose that wouldn't stop plod from breaking his door down at four in
the morning in the mistaken belief that it was him doing these things. That
would cause some inconvenience but the case wouldn't reach court.
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:16:15 +0100, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>>Does this mean that you also think anyone who is careless enough to leave their
>>front door unlocked "deserves all they get" if they are burgled? Do you think
>>thieves should not be prosecuted if they steal from people who have not taken
>>adequate precautions against this?
>
> Your analogy and conclusion are both flawed.
>
> Having an unsecured and fully-announced wireless network is like
> leaving your door not only unlocked, but wide open with a "please help
> yourself" sign outside. In such an instance, I definitely have no
> sympathy.
Rather than an open domestic front door, I think it is more like a
shop or office with the sign "Internet Access Here" and an unlocked
door. Someone using WiFi will see your 'sign' (as a network available
to use) and when they attempt to use that connection it is like
pushing the shop door, finding it open, entering and making use of the
facilities inside.
Though maybe a better analogy would be a public convenience. You would
not expect to go along a street trying all the house doors and
entering one which was open and using the loo in one you found
open. But if a door has a sign "Ladies" or "Gentlemen", as appropriate
for your sex, and is unlocked then it is an invitation to enter if you
wish to relieve yourself.
On Thursday, 28 Jul 05 18:08:32 GMT, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
>blah wrote:
>
>| >I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
>| >connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
>| >guy does exactly the same thing
>| >
>| >http://tinyurl.com/a7rsq
>|
>| Surely he is mad? The threat to his liberty from people using his
>| connection for copyright/illegal porn is a real one.
>
>Why? He's no more liable for the actions of people who use his WiFi node
>than an ISP is liable for the actions of its customers.
>
>Indeed, he's acting as an ISP himself.
>
>I suppose that wouldn't stop plod from breaking his door down at four in
>the morning in the mistaken belief that it was him doing these things. That
>would cause some inconvenience but the case wouldn't reach court.
>
>Mike.
If the police monitored his IP swapping illegal material on Kazaa and
then raided his house, they would only need to find a couple of dodgy
thumbnails and he would get done, regardless of whether he was the one
doing the downloading.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:09:09 +0100, bigbrian
<harry8611@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:57:27 +0100, blah <J@sifjis.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:52:29 +0100, bigbrian <harry8611@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
>>>connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
>>>guy does exactly the same thing
>>>
>>Surely he is mad? The threat to his liberty from people using his
>>connection for copyright/illegal porn is a real one.
>
> I assume that, while people can access his connection, he's happy that
> he has sufficient security over access to his hard drives that no one
> can see them and plant stuff on them.
That's not the point. He is almost certainly against his ISPs terms and
conditions, all the ones I've seen hold the account owner responsible
for all activity and ban use of the connection for illegal purposes. Or
for spamming and other net abuse, which would likely get him closed down
by his ISP.
> Or did you mean the traceability of his IP address from someone access
> illegal material? His public statement about the wide openness of his
> connection *ought* to be a pretty effective defence, but I appreciate
> it comes at the cost of "pay to play" it. He might well have been
> without his PC (and his front door) for some time before he gets to
> make his case
If I make my car available to any takers, and it is used to commit a
crime, I will be charged as an accessory to that crime. I see no reason
that providing an "open to anyone" service wouldn't be treated as the
same. Plus unless he keeps detailed logs of all transfers he has no way
of proving that it was someone else who did the transfers. Since there
is no "common carrier" law in the UK, the person who provides the
facilities is liable for what is done with them.
And it probably won't just be his PC, they'll take anything which could
hold any 'dodgy' material and it will be up to him to try to get it back
(and no guarantees of the condition it will be in).
On Thursday, 28 Jul 05 18:08:32 GMT, Mike
<mike@kempston.net> wrote:
> blah wrote:
>
>| >I know of several people who not only are aware that their broadband
>| >connections are being piggy backed, but actually encourage it. This
>| >guy does exactly the same thing
>| >
>| >http://tinyurl.com/a7rsq
>|
>| Surely he is mad? The threat to his liberty from people using his
>| connection for copyright/illegal porn is a real one.
>
> Why? He's no more liable for the actions of people who use his WiFi node
> than an ISP is liable for the actions of its customers.
See Godfrey vs. Demon. Plus an ISP has customers and contracts with
them which forbid the use of the connection for illegal purposes and
state that any such use is the customer's responsibility (hire car
companies do the same).
> Indeed, he's acting as an ISP himself.
But without anyone to pass the blame onto, no proof that it wasn't
himself who acted illegally.
> I suppose that wouldn't stop plod from breaking his door down at four in
> the morning in the mistaken belief that it was him doing these things. That
> would cause some inconvenience but the case wouldn't reach court.
Really? Oh well, he'll find out. Think of it as evolution in action...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <6i9he1hog3fnnt9lifridsfcdlr7jjj2r9@4ax.com>, Paul Harper wrote:
>
>>>I often wondered whether it was legal to do so, having had neighbours hijack
>>>my connection, and having discovered that my own kids were sometimes
>>>inadvertently hijacking a neighbour's connection.
>>>
>>>Yet another way for law abiding citizens to find themselves in breach of the
>>>law, then
>>
>>I don't have a lot of sympathy - anyone who doesn't put security on
>>their wireless network deserves all they get as far as I am concerned.
>
> Does this mean that you also think anyone who is careless enough to leave their
> front door unlocked "deserves all they get" if they are burgled? Do you think
> thieves should not be prosecuted if they steal from people who have not taken
> adequate precautions against this?
If we're going into analogies, utterly secured networks are a bit like
unfenced land, people will wander into them, either because they assume
it is allowed, or they just don't notice. Putting any kind of security
that someone will need to circumvent in place, no matter how easy it is
to bypass, tells people that you don't want them on your network.
--
=/\= Lt. Cmdr. Jim =/\=
By our chocolate, shall they know us.
Not on behalf of any committee, real or imaginary, in this or any other
universe.
Chris Croughton wrote:
| On Thursday, 28 Jul 05 18:08:32 GMT, Mike
| <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
|
| > Why? He's no more liable for the actions of people who use his WiFi node
| > than an ISP is liable for the actions of its customers.
|
| See Godfrey vs. Demon.
I'm very familiar with that case. Demon was liable *only* because it
ignored a request to cease publication, *not* because its facilities were
used to publish the libel.
| > Indeed, he's acting as an ISP himself.
|
| But without anyone to pass the blame onto, no proof that it wasn't
| himself who acted illegally.
That's not how the law works (in general). The police would have to prove
that he had done the illegal act. He wouldn't have to prove that he hadn't.
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:16:15 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>Personally I prefer the old-fashioned morality wherein theft is wrong, the
>wrongness being defined on the basis of who the stolen items belong to, and
>nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is easy or difficult for the thief to
>take them.
Do you also believe that it is morally wrong to offer complete
strangers something for free? Is it then wrong for such strangers to
take advantage of your offer? Especially when doing so is costing the
offerer nothing at all (above what they are paying anyway)?
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:41:45 +0100, Paul Harper <paul@harper.net>
wrote:
>Having an unsecured and fully-announced wireless network is like
>leaving your door not only unlocked, but wide open with a "please help
>yourself" sign outside. In such an instance, I definitely have no
>sympathy.
No sympathy for *what*? What harm has been done by using the person's
network? They probably would not know about it and never find out.
So why should they get upset at all?
I guess I am a bit unusual, in that I have always been pretty
unconcerned about people using whtever I have when it of no
diadvantage to me. When I owned a house with a swimming pool, my
retired neighbours knew they were welcome to have a swim whilst I was
at work, and frequently did so. In return I enjoyed an excellent
relationship with them and often arrived home to find a crate of beer
on the doorstep. People also got to know that they were welcome to
take fruit from the trees in my front garden so long as they did not
cause damage. I usually have a tin of biscuits on my desk that
everyone knows they are free to dip into when they pass. If I have
hired an aircraft and not all the seats will be used, I'll invariably
ask around to see whether anyone might like a flight.
I have never really thought deeply about the possibility that doing
such things may be seen as suspicious or put me at significant risk of
legal action.
>>Having an unsecured and fully-announced wireless network is like
>>leaving your door not only unlocked, but wide open with a "please help
>>yourself" sign outside. In such an instance, I definitely have no
>>sympathy.
>
>
> No sympathy for *what*? What harm has been done by using the person's
> network? They probably would not know about it and never find out.
> So why should they get upset at all?
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:09:27 +0100, Cynic in message
<news:626ke1lnv59vn98nf58c2na6mink3bcl1m@4ax.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:41:45 +0100, Paul Harper <paul@harper.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Having an unsecured and fully-announced wireless network is like
>>leaving your door not only unlocked, but wide open with a "please help
>>yourself" sign outside. In such an instance, I definitely have no
>>sympathy.
>
> No sympathy for *what*? What harm has been done by using the person's
> network? They probably would not know about it and never find out.
> So why should they get upset at all?
>
Well the harm *may* be that they may be using the connection for criminal
purposes.
Or they may be using a lot of bandwidth - quite a few ISPs charge by the
amount of bandwidth used, and he wouldn't know which ISP the hacked user
was with.
With Plusnet, for instance, you can have services capped at as little as
1Gb/month.
And even if they don't, all ISPs base their charges on what is a
sustainable level of usage for them. If this type of connection sharing
becomes commonplace, then the total useage per subscriber will be higher,
and costs for everyone will rise.
> I guess I am a bit unusual, in that I have always been pretty
> unconcerned about people using whtever I have when it of no
> diadvantage to me.
Which is no problem, except that it *may* be of disadvantage to you here.
>
> I have never really thought deeply about the possibility that doing
> such things may be seen as suspicious or put me at significant risk of
> legal action.
I don't think it does either, in itself.
It does put you at risk of *investigation* for any criminal activity that
is traced to your connection. Whether that is a significant risk, I would
not like to say.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
If I save time, when do I get it back ?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
The Todal wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm. I'll have a go. I seem to remember that you can anyway ask your
> computer for a list of wireless services and can then ask it to connect to
> one, even if the default is your own one. I might be wrong. I would feel a
> bit uncomfortable asking the neighbour to use security in case my kids
> browse their network, because I don't know how the neighbour would react to
> that.
>
If he has any common sense he would say thank you. This is no different
than pointing out that their back door was blowing open and closed in
the wind while they were away.
> Have you mentioned it to your neighbour, in case he's unaware of
> people using his unsecured network, or unaware that it should be
> secured? (Or is he likely to punch you out rather than thank you?)
>
> FWIW, I set up a laptop for my sister-in-law this past spring which,
> out of the box, was set up to search for networks. It picked up 5,
> exactly *none* of which were secured. 4 of them were wireless Internet
> connections, but one of them was an unsecured wireless LAN for the
> local branch of Deloitte & Co -- the accountants/whatever firm.
>
> I wasn't surprised to see the home networks, but an unsecured company
> LAN?
>
Sure, the same people who buy stuff and just cluelessly plug it in at
home also do it at work. Wireless maunufacturers took the easy way out
by producing equipment that comes up in pants down no security mode as
soon as you connect it.
"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:uKmdnQErz6pOpXffRVn-tg@adelphia.com...
> The Todal wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. I'll have a go. I seem to remember that you can anyway ask your
>> computer for a list of wireless services and can then ask it to connect
>> to one, even if the default is your own one. I might be wrong. I would
>> feel a bit uncomfortable asking the neighbour to use security in case my
>> kids browse their network, because I don't know how the neighbour would
>> react to that.
> If he has any common sense he would say thank you. This is no different
> than pointing out that their back door was blowing open and closed in the
> wind while they were away.
You can easily shut a back door. I think there is a risk he would perhaps
say something like "oh, I don't understand these things, and the man from
BT/my brother/a friend of mine came in to set up my router. I wouldn't know
how to set up security. What are you saying - you can't stop your kids
accessing my system and maybe rummaging through my files or downloading
copyrighted music on my broadband connection? That worries me. I think I'd
better talk to my lawyer. And no, I don't want you fiddling with my router
and changing the settings in ways that I don't understand, thanks very much.
"
On 29 Jul 2005 16:29, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote:
> What are you saying - you can't stop your kids accessing my system
Response from me would be - "I was alerted to the fact your network could be
accessed. It was an accident, and couldn't have happened if it had been made
a bit more secure. Although we're unlikely to ever access it again, it isn't
beyond the realms of possibility that someone else may find your network is
open, and either make use of the internet through it, or try 'breaking in'
to any computers you have on at the time. Just thought I'd better let you
know - oh, and here's a website [hand over post-it note with URL!] which
describes the need for security with Wi-Fi"...
I don't have a URL for such a site, nor do I have any wireless kit to even
know if someone around here is tempting fate, but it'd hopefully be taken
as constructive (and mild) 'criticism', or just a friendly word :-) PGM.
--
UK ADSL <http://tinyurl.com/5jpa4> - Happy to save cash with Plus.Net!!
In article <bs5ke1l0smna0lc9v34bt8j1dpvecj5j14@4ax.com>, Cynic wrote:
> >Personally I prefer the old-fashioned morality wherein theft is wrong, the
> >wrongness being defined on the basis of who the stolen items belong to, and
> >nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is easy or difficult for the thief to
> >take them.
>
> Do you also believe that it is morally wrong to offer complete
> strangers something for free? Is it then wrong for such strangers to
> take advantage of your offer? Especially when doing so is costing the
> offerer nothing at all (above what they are paying anyway)?
Of course not. If a thing is yours, it's yours to give, lend or sell as you
please, and presumably you'd make the situation clear to all concerned. I thought
we were talking about the *taking* of something belonging to somebody else. I
simply offered the thought that we should not automatically assume that somebody
else's property is on free offer unless otherwise indicated. In fact, it has been
customary in the past to assume the reverse, i.e. leave alone unless otherwise
indicated, so why should it be any different just because it's an electronic
service and not a physical object?
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> writes:
> I thought we were talking about the *taking* of something belonging
> to somebody else. I simply offered the thought that we should not
> automatically assume that somebody else's property is on free offer
> unless otherwise indicated. In fact, it has been customary in the
> past to assume the reverse, i.e. leave alone unless otherwise
> indicated, so why should it be any different just because it's an
> electronic service and not a physical object?
It is not different. Consider how wireless networking must work. It
must work in one of 2 ways. Either the 'base station' periodically
broadcasts a message "I am here and available for connection" and when
systems wish to connect they contact a base station and politely ask
"May I connect to you, please?" then (possibly after further
negotiation) the base station either grants or refuses the request. Or
the system wishing to connect 'shouts' "I wish to connect, is anyone
willing to offer me a connection" and any base stations willing to
offer connection respond "You may connect to me"
In either case, the system wishing to connect has to seek permission
from the base station before it can connect and use its facilities,
and the base station (and hence the owner of the network) is
advertising its availability for use.
Re: Hijacking a broadband connection 
Linear Mode
