In article <878xzovkqn.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk>, Graham Murray wrote:
> > 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.
My goodness it doesn't take much to pass the Turing Test these days. We
need to distinguish between, on the one hand, brainless electronic
equipment following automatic procedures which are built into them during
manufacture, and of which their owners are probably unaware, and on the
other hand, a human being knowingly making an offer. It's quite common to
talk loosely of electronic devices "talking" to each other, or
"negotiating", or asking and receiving "permission", but taking this too
literally leads to sloppy thinking as it isn't ther same thing. An
electronic device following its program and responding to another
electronic device doesn't amount to "permission" at all, unless it has
the backing of a sentient being who knows what it's doing and wants it to
behave in that way.
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> writes:
> My goodness it doesn't take much to pass the Turing Test these days. We
> need to distinguish between, on the one hand, brainless electronic
> equipment following automatic procedures which are built into them during
> manufacture, and of which their owners are probably unaware, and on the
> other hand, a human being knowingly making an offer. It's quite common to
> talk loosely of electronic devices "talking" to each other, or
> "negotiating", or asking and receiving "permission", but taking this too
> literally leads to sloppy thinking as it isn't ther same thing. An
> electronic device following its program and responding to another
> electronic device doesn't amount to "permission" at all, unless it has
> the backing of a sentient being who knows what it's doing and wants it to
> behave in that way.
However, nowadays a lot of security access control is handled
electronically. So I think that, in the absence of evidence of
malfunction or tampering, the assumption must be that an electronic
security access system is acting with the authorisation of, and
implementing the policies of, its owner. This should apply just as
much to the case of a wireless router allowing (or blocking) access to
a laptop PC as to the case of an ATM validating your 'access' when you
use a Chip and PIN card to withdraw money.
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:17:32 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>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.
Not all wireless router manufacturers are that negligent. 2wire.com
wireless routers are delivered with a unique SSID, password
pre-assigned, encryption enabled, and a random encryption key
assigned. These are all printed on the label on the unit, which
methinks is not a great idea, but certainly better than totally
insecure by default. If asked, most cheapo wireless manufacturers
will proclaim that shipping units secure by default will be difficult
to administer and cost too much. Well, 2Wire has been doing it
successfully for several years, so it shouldn't be too difficult to
emulate. Setups for the major ISP's are also built in: http://www.2wire.com/?p=268
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"?
>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"?
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
In article <s2gue1533n0e2km0p7vuthfah24059ughm@4ax.com>, Postman Pat wrote:
> >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.
>
> Not really because J Public can be reasonably expected to buy a
> wireless enabled laptop, take it home, switch it on, and HEY I have
> internet access.
I think you're missing the point, which was in reply to someone who seemed to
think that an unsecured network was fair game to anybody who felt like using it.
The fact that a network is unsecured may not necessarily constitute an
"invitation" to use it as it may simply be unsecured as a result of its owner's
ignorance. Ironically, as you've pointed out, the same general ignorance that can
result in one person's property (i.e. internet service) being inadvertently
vulnerable to theft can also make someone else inadvertently commit it.
The situation is a minefield, but I don't think it gives anyone the right to
exploit someone else's ignorance by knowingly taking something that isn't theirs
simply because the owner is unaware of how to stop them.
> Ironically, as you've pointed out, the same general ignorance that can
> result in one person's property (i.e. internet service) being inadvertently
> vulnerable to theft can also make someone else inadvertently commit it.
It's a bit different, because in this case there are many people that
intentionally allow others to use their "product." While few people
would invite strangers to use their car, or their house, many people do
in fact allow, and even encourage, strangers to use their wireless
connection.
Rather than simply associating with unsecured networks, the OS should
display a warning (at least once) that the user should obtain permission
from the owner of any unsecured wireless network before using it,
because some unsecured wireless networks are not intended for their use.
Of course there is really no way to find the owner of a wireless network.
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> writes:
> The fact that a network is unsecured may not necessarily constitute
> an "invitation" to use it as it may simply be unsecured as a result
> of its owner's ignorance.
But, in a legal scenario, should the owner's ignorance be taken into
account? Should there not be the presumption that the owner/operator
is responsible for correctly configuring and operating the equipment?
If someone bought a house which had a backdoor, accessible from an
alley, to the garage with the sign 'Free Apples Here' affixed to it,
put apples in the garage, did not remove the sign and kept the back
door unlocked then I am sure they would not have any valid legal
grounds for complaint if people came into the garage via the back door
and helped themselves to the apples even if they never use the back
door to the garage, did not notice it was unlocked and never walked
along the alley so were not aware of the sign.
While this may seem a ridiculous analogy, it is almost exactly the
situation of someone who (by ignorance) runs an 'open' wireless router
without changing the configuration.
Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> writes:
>
>> The fact that a network is unsecured may not necessarily constitute
>> an "invitation" to use it as it may simply be unsecured as a result
>> of its owner's ignorance.
>
>But, in a legal scenario, should the owner's ignorance be taken into
>account? Should there not be the presumption that the owner/operator
>is responsible for correctly configuring and operating the equipment?
>
>If someone bought a house which had a backdoor, accessible from an
>alley, to the garage with the sign 'Free Apples Here' affixed to it,
>put apples in the garage, did not remove the sign and kept the back
>door unlocked then I am sure they would not have any valid legal
>grounds for complaint if people came into the garage via the back door
>and helped themselves to the apples even if they never use the back
>door to the garage, did not notice it was unlocked and never walked
>along the alley so were not aware of the sign.
>
>While this may seem a ridiculous analogy, it is almost exactly the
>situation of someone who (by ignorance) runs an 'open' wireless router
>without changing the configuration.
That is indeed a ridiculous analogy, because there is *no sign* which
says "Free Apples Here". All there is is the unlocked back door.
Now, if the SSID gets changed from "Linksys" to "OpenAccess", then
yes there is a sign... and the analogy would fit that scenario.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:57:43 +0100, Graham Murray in message
<news:874qa8lcmw.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> writes:
>
>> The fact that a network is unsecured may not necessarily constitute
>> an "invitation" to use it as it may simply be unsecured as a result
>> of its owner's ignorance.
>
> But, in a legal scenario, should the owner's ignorance be taken into
> account? Should there not be the presumption that the owner/operator
> is responsible for correctly configuring and operating the equipment?
>
> If someone bought a house which had a backdoor, accessible from an
> alley, to the garage with the sign 'Free Apples Here' affixed to it,
> put apples in the garage, did not remove the sign and kept the back
> door unlocked then I am sure they would not have any valid legal
> grounds for complaint if people came into the garage via the back door
> and helped themselves to the apples even if they never use the back
> door to the garage, did not notice it was unlocked and never walked
> along the alley so were not aware of the sign.
>
> While this may seem a ridiculous analogy, it is almost exactly the
> situation of someone who (by ignorance) runs an 'open' wireless router
> without changing the configuration.
There is one HUGE difference.
There is no big sign saying "Free wireless connection here".
If somebody left apples in their unlocked garage, but without any sign to
say they were free, then they *would* have a complaint if somebody walked
off with some.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Put on your seatbelt. I'm gonna try something new.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:02:47 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>There is one HUGE difference.
>
>There is no big sign saying "Free wireless connection here".
There *is* if they are broadcasting (that's they key word, right
there) the SSID of the network.
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.
In article <874qa8lcmw.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk>, Graham Murray wrote:
> > The fact that a network is unsecured may not necessarily constitute
> > an "invitation" to use it as it may simply be unsecured as a result
> > of its owner's ignorance.
>
> But, in a legal scenario, should the owner's ignorance be taken into
> account? Should there not be the presumption that the owner/operator
> is responsible for correctly configuring and operating the equipment?
I think there should be a presumption that someone else's property, be
it a physical object, access to premises, or access to a service of some
kind, is NOT offered freely to all and sundry unless there is a clear
indication that it is. The mere absence of active prevention should not
be taken as such an indication.
In article <a70ve1toq1fh89t1b3pi6km79u561dfe9c@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
wrote:
> >There is one HUGE difference.
> >
> >There is no big sign saying "Free wireless connection here".
>
> There *is* if they are broadcasting (that's they key word, right
> there) the SSID of the network.
No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
invitation. The registration plate on your car isn't an invitation for
somebody to drive it away, is it?
If the owner of a network has taken the trouble of changing the default
setting to something equivalent to "help yourself", then that's a clear
sign that they understand what they are doing and are consciously
making an offer, but most network owners will have no idea of what
their equipment is doing, having bought it in the simple expectation
that it will just do its job. They may be ignorant, they may be naive,
but what's theirs is still theirs and nobody has the automatic right to
take it simply because of this.
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:19:52 +0100, Paul Harper in message
<news:a70ve1toq1fh89t1b3pi6km79u561dfe9c@4ax.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:02:47 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>There is one HUGE difference.
>>
>>There is no big sign saying "Free wireless connection here".
>
> There *is* if they are broadcasting (that's they key word, right
> there) the SSID of the network.
>
Rubbish.
If they change the SSID to something indicating it was providing free
access, fair enough.
But just broadcasting it is absolutely NOT enough.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
My karma ran over my dogma
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:51:20 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
>invitation.
That is an opinion, not a legal ruling.
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.
Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:02:47 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>There is one HUGE difference.
>>
>>There is no big sign saying "Free wireless connection here".
>
>There *is* if they are broadcasting (that's they key word, right
>there) the SSID of the network.
Please explain how that is true?
That is like saying the back door to the garage has to be
camouflaged to hide the fact that a door exists.
Just as with broadcasting the SSID, if anyone actually uses that
hidden door it will be spotted by everyone standing in the
street watching.
Every packet sent by the AP includes the SSID in clear text; the
only thing that "broadcasting" it does is provide it at a
frequent enough rate that a quick scan (by someone who wants to
avoid interference) will spot it. Not broadcasting it merely
means the scan has to last a little longer (someone has to stand
in the street watching the garage until the door gets used).
The only way the SSID is a sign is if it is something like
"FREE_ACCESS". If it says "Linksys" that is no different that
the lock on your door saying "Shlage" on it.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:22:21 +0100, Phil Thompson
<phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:30:34 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Of course there is really no way to find the owner of a wireless network.
>
>debatable, often you could find the IP address and hence get to the
>owner via ISP etc.
Yes, *if* the ISP is able to map an IP address to a specific customer.
Not all do this.
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:34:42 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
>Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:02:47 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There is one HUGE difference.
>>>
>>>There is no big sign saying "Free wireless connection here".
>>
>>There *is* if they are broadcasting (that's they key word, right
>>there) the SSID of the network.
>
>Please explain how that is true?
Easy.
You are broadcasting the presence of your network outside
of your premises. You are explicitly inviting people to use it,
especially if you do not put any security around it.
If you *don't* want people to use it, you would a) not broadcast it
and b) put security around it.
It's the direct equivalent of putting "help yourself" in front of a
pile of goods you leave outside your property boundary. It is
*exactly* the same as that.
>That is like saying the back door to the garage has to be
>camouflaged to hide the fact that a door exists.
No. It is nothing like that at all. Not remotely like that.
Paul (all IMO, of course)
--
.. 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.
> I think there should be a presumption that someone else's property, be
> it a physical object, access to premises, or access to a service of some
> kind, is NOT offered freely to all and sundry unless there is a clear
> indication that it is.
> The mere absence of active prevention should not
> be taken as such an indication.
In this case, the type of property is often offered freely to all,
without indication.
When a certain type of product is often given away for free, an owner of
the product that decides to not give it away, needs to make it clear
that they are not giving it away, either with a sign, or with some sort
of security.
Analogies are tough on this one. Maybe air and water from a gas station.
Many stations give it away free, even to non-customers. If free use got
out of hand, then the gas station would secure the air and water
station, and require a token to activate it, as some gas stations have
done. But normally the gas station that does give it away to anyone,
does not post a big sign that says "free air and water," they just leave
it available for anyone that wants it, because it's more trouble than
it's worth to secure it. Everyone just knows that unless it's secured,
or unless their is a sign that says "customers only" that it's okay to
use it.
Of the unsecure wireless networks I can pick up from my house, I happen
to know that some of them are offered freely, even there is no
indication in the SSID that they are free, while others are probably
just the result of the laziness of the owner to setup a secure network.
> Rubbish.
>
> If they change the SSID to something indicating it was providing free
> access, fair enough.
>
> But just broadcasting it is absolutely NOT enough.
Many of the intentionally free wireless networks do not give any
indication in the SSID that they are free. Nor do the unintentionally
free networks give any indication in the SSID that they are not free.
Windows makes it worse by simply connecting to the insecure network as
if it is available to anyone, with only a warning that the data sent
over the insecure network may not be secure.
There are so many intentionally free wireless networks, especially in
some areas, that the presumption is that any unsecured network is
available to anyone that wants to use it.
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:52:13 -0400, Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org>
wrote:
>>>Of course there is really no way to find the owner of a wireless network.
>>
>>debatable, often you could find the IP address and hence get to the
>>owner via ISP etc.
>
>Yes, *if* the ISP is able to map an IP address to a specific customer.
>Not all do this.
And *if* the user can discover the Internet IP address that the
wireless network is using - which is not at all straightforward. (It
is not usually the IP address allocated to the wireless client).
Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:34:42 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:02:47 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is one HUGE difference.
>>>>
>>>>There is no big sign saying "Free wireless connection here".
>>>
>>>There *is* if they are broadcasting (that's they key word, right
>>>there) the SSID of the network.
>>
>>Please explain how that is true?
>
>Easy.
You didn't though...
>You are broadcasting the presence of your network outside
>of your premises. You are explicitly inviting people to use it,
>especially if you do not put any security around it.
That is an absurd concept!
As I said, you are claiming the garage door is an invitation if
it isn't hidden with camouflage. Actually now you are claiming
the entire garage has to be invisible!
>If you *don't* want people to use it, you would a) not broadcast it
>and b) put security around it.
You don't have to hide your garage, and you don't have to lock
the door either. Anyone who takes something from the garage
without permission is *stealing*.
The same is true of you wireless network. *Broadcast* is *not*
what makes the network visible! It merely guarantees an
identifying packet will be sent at *shorter* intervals than will
happen if it is not broadcast. In either cast your SSID is
unencrypted in *every* packet your AP sends.
Locking the garage is not required to determine that taking
something in it is theft, and neither is any particular degree
of security a requirement for your wireless network.
>It's the direct equivalent of putting "help yourself" in front of a
>pile of goods you leave outside your property boundary. It is
>*exactly* the same as that.
That is another absurd statement. Clearly if the SSID is set to
be "help yourself", then it would be that. But if the SSID
*doesn't*, then it isn't. There is *nothing* intrinsic to an
SSID that says "help yourself".
>>That is like saying the back door to the garage has to be
>>camouflaged to hide the fact that a door exists.
>
>No. It is nothing like that at all. Not remotely like that.
That is indeed *exactly* the same.
You clearly don't have any idea what the SSID is or how it works
and what it does.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:27:10 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
>You clearly don't have any idea what the SSID is or how it works
>and what it does.
And you clearly have no concept of boundaries, broadcasting and the
implications thereof.
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 Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:28:51 +0100, Paul Harper in message
<news:pg7ve1hdfnc4f6sgd17lkhl14hr83351ac@4ax.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 07:34:42 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:02:47 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is one HUGE difference.
>>>>
>>>>There is no big sign saying "Free wireless connection here".
>>>
>>>There *is* if they are broadcasting (that's they key word, right
>>>there) the SSID of the network.
>>
>>Please explain how that is true?
>
> Easy.
>
> You are broadcasting the presence of your network outside
> of your premises. You are explicitly inviting people to use it,
> especially if you do not put any security around it.
>
> If you *don't* want people to use it, you would a) not broadcast it
> and b) put security around it.
>
To call that utter bollocks is being far too polite about it.
> It's the direct equivalent of putting "help yourself" in front of a
> pile of goods you leave outside your property boundary. It is
> *exactly* the same as that.
>
The possibility the courts might agree with your ridiculous sentiment is
pretty close to nil, IMO.
It isn't even remotely close to that. It is the same as leaving your gate
open, *nothing* more.
If all routers were delivered with the defaults et up being to hide the
SSID, then that might have *some* merit, but not much.
Given the fact that every router I have come across has factory default
setting of displaying it, and no warnings in the manual that you should
hide it, I would expect the majority of people have not done anything with
it.
That absolutely does NOT mean that most people are inviting anyone who
wants to share their connection.
IMO, your attempts here are just an attempt to justify theft.
>>That is like saying the back door to the garage has to be
>>camouflaged to hide the fact that a door exists.
>
> No. It is nothing like that at all. Not remotely like that.
>
Yes it is.
Putting encryption on is like locking the door. Hiding the SSID is like
camouflaging the door.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
There is no dark side of the moon. Really.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:30:53 +0100, Paul Harper in message
<news:adbve1pa9cjnsir8s4s2v1869cmto0vi0a@4ax.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:27:10 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote:
>
>>You clearly don't have any idea what the SSID is or how it works
>>and what it does.
>
> And you clearly have no concept of boundaries, broadcasting and the
> implications thereof.
>
How would you know, since he has demonstrated a *far* better understanding
of the implications than you have?
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Facts are stubborn things.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:06:25 GMT, SMS in message
<news:lKNHe.6986$p%3.33858@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> > I think there should be a presumption that someone else's property, be
> > it a physical object, access to premises, or access to a service of some
> > kind, is NOT offered freely to all and sundry unless there is a clear
> > indication that it is.
>
> > The mere absence of active prevention should not
> > be taken as such an indication.
>
> In this case, the type of property is often offered freely to all,
> without indication.
>
> When a certain type of product is often given away for free, an owner of
> the product that decides to not give it away, needs to make it clear
> that they are not giving it away, either with a sign, or with some sort
> of security.
>
Rubbish.
If you decide to use something that doesn't belong to you, then it is
*your* responsibility to ensure that the owner is happy for you to do so.
It is NOT the responsibility of the owner to make sure it is obvious they
don't want you to use it.
> Analogies are tough on this one. Maybe air and water from a gas station.
> Many stations give it away free, even to non-customers. If free use got
> out of hand, then the gas station would secure the air and water
> station, and require a token to activate it, as some gas stations have
> done. But normally the gas station that does give it away to anyone,
> does not post a big sign that says "free air and water," they just leave
> it available for anyone that wants it, because it's more trouble than
> it's worth to secure it. Everyone just knows that unless it's secured,
> or unless their is a sign that says "customers only" that it's okay to
> use it.
>
Here in the UK (I hadn't noticed till now that the thread is alos in a
non-uk group), that is a very bad analogy, because the majority of filling
stations that don't charge DO have signs saying "Free air and water".
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
"Apple" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
> As I said, you are claiming the garage door is an invitation if
> it isn't hidden with camouflage. Actually now you are claiming
> the entire garage has to be invisible!
That is a terrible analogy. Few people ever intentionally leave access
to their home open to anyone, but many people, and businesses,
intentionally leave access to their wireless network open to anyone,
with the express intention that anyone that wants to use it, may use it.
Find another analogy, if you can, because the garage analogy doesn't
apply here. It's not easy to find an appropriate analogy of something
that is often intentionally supplied to the anyone that wants it, at no
charge, that is also often not intended to be available at no charge.
Especially when it's something that is not really 'used up' by providing
it at no cost.
The bottom line is that there are two types of unsecured wireless
networks, and both types are widespread:
1. Unsecured wireless networks that are intended to be available to
anyone that wants to use them.
2. Unsecured wireless networks that are not intended to be available to
anyone that wants to use them.
The operators of the first type are either altruistic, or they are a
business that sees an upside to providing free access.
The operators of the second type are either lazy, clueless, or don't
really care if someone else uses their network.
It's further complicated that the predominant computer operating system
will simply automatically connect to an unsecure network, without the
understanding of the computer user as to what is happening and why they
suddenly have internet access.
When I set up my home wireless network, and those for relatives, I
secured them because I was more concerned that someone might use them
for nefarious purposes, than I was concerned about the bandwidth that
they would use up. In the U.S., the last thing you want is some pervert
using your network connection, since the police will come knocking on
_your_ door, and confiscate _your_ computers and servers, while they
investigate.
Re: Hijacking a broadband connection 
Linear Mode
