> 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.
There is an expectation that some things in society are often not
charged for. A store with a water fountain and restrooms doesn't put up
a sign saying "free water," or "free restrooms." If a store doesn't want
the public using their restrooms they will put up a sign "no public
restrooms," or "restrooms for customers only," or require a coin or
token to use the restrooms. It is the responsibility of the owner to
make sure that it is obvious that they don't want you to use it, since
in most cases it is intended that you be permitted to use it without asking.
The same applies for wireless. Wireless is often not charged for, and
there is an expectation that it is okay to use an available wireless
network, unless the owner says otherwise; the way they say that it's not
okay is by requiring a key.
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:47:05 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:30:53 +0100, Paul Harper in message
><news:adbve1pa9cjnsir8s4s2v1869cmto0vi0a@4ax.co m> 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?
He's not "demonstrated" anything. Merely expressed an opinion.
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, 2 Aug 2005 19:45:35 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:28:51 +0100, Paul Harper in message
><news:pg7ve1hdfnc4f6sgd17lkhl14hr83351ac@4ax.co m> 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.
No it isn't - you're just being too juvenile to admit it.
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, 2 Aug 2005 19:51:04 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>It is NOT the responsibility of the owner to make sure it is obvious they
>don't want you to use it.
Yes it is. If you put something into the public domain, you're liable
and responsible for it.
Broadcasting an unsecure wireless network is putting it into the
public domain.
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 19:01:18 GMT, SMS in message
<news:2qPHe.7018$p%3.33667@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
Not in this country.
*Some* may do, but very few, AFAIK.
here are plenty of wireless "hot spots", but you are almost always expected
to pay for the use of those.
<snip>
>
> 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.
That is also true here in the UK.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Want a stupid answer? Ask me anything!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:24:35 +0100, Paul Harper in message
<news:silve11fof3dv1edgfiujpm130s1a4ikro@4ax.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:45:35 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> No it isn't - you're just being too juvenile to admit it.
>
NO, the juveniles are those thinking they are entitled to free access just
because somebody hasn't explicitly prevented them from using something that
doesn't belong to them.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
My attention isn't hard to get. It IS hard to keep...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:24:12 GMT, SMS in message
<news:wLPHe.7026$p%3.33869@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> There is an expectation that some things in society are often not
> charged for.
Indeed.
But internet access is not one of those things. (at least in the UK)
It is very occasionally that you will find a person or business
deliberately offering free access.
>
> The same applies for wireless. Wireless is often not charged for,
No. It is *very occasionally* not charged for.
>and
> there is an expectation that it is okay to use an available wireless
> network, unless the owner says otherwise; the way they say that it's not
> okay is by requiring a key.
If you have that expectation in the UK, and act on it, you could well find
yourself in court, as did the defendant in the case that prompted this
thread.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
We give nothing as willingly as our advice.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:26:30 +0100, Paul Harper in message
<news:lllve1h4qjone5fi6q6hubaah4dtpja7bi@4ax.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:51:04 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>It is NOT the responsibility of the owner to make sure it is obvious they
>>don't want you to use it.
>
> Yes it is. If you put something into the public domain, you're liable
> and responsible for it.
>
> Broadcasting an unsecure wireless network is putting it into the
> public domain.
>
Rubbish.
To put something into the public domain, you have to explicitly state you
are doing so.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Windows NT: The world's only 80 megabyte Solitaire game!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:01:06 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>> There is an expectation that some things in society are often not
>> charged for.
>
>Indeed.
>
>But internet access is not one of those things. (at least in the UK)
>
>It is very occasionally that you will find a person or business
>deliberately offering free access.
>
>>
>> The same applies for wireless. Wireless is often not charged for,
>
>No. It is *very occasionally* not charged for.
Perhaps this will change in the UK as Internet access becomes routine
and ubiquitous.
As a point of comparison, I recently did some travelling in Canada and
found that many hotels provide uncharged wireless access. Some of
them restrict access to paying guests by means of a daily password on
a forced portal but others are entirely open. Of these, the majority
seemed to have no objection to people walking in off the street and
sitting in the lobby or bar and making use of the access.
It was rather pleasant overlooking Niagara Falls and having the same,
instant access to my computers at home as if I were at home.
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:01:18 GMT, SMS in message
> <news:2qPHe.7018$p%3.33667@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>
>
> Not in this country.
In the U.S., free wireless networks are very common. They are in hotels,
restaurants, cafes, as well as being offered by individuals, and
municipalities. Some cafes charge for connections (i.e. Starbucks) but
it is more the exception than the rule. Amusingly, some customers will
set up a free network inside a Starbucks, so users don't have to pay
T-Mobile. I.e., the Starbucks closest to me, is across the street from a
city park that offers free wireless, as well as a restaurant that
offers free wireless. With a directional antenna, and a bridge, you
could easily offer free wireless at Starbucks. The coffee house closest
to my house offers free wireless, which is an inducement to go there
rather than Starbucks, or other place where they charge for wireless.
It has become a problem, for some cafes, that people squat at a table
and never buy anything. Some places now give you a code that is good for
a certain amount of time per dollar spent, which seems fair.
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:23:12 +0100, Mike <mike@kempston.net> wrote:
> Of these, the majority
>seemed to have no objection to people walking in off the street and
>sitting in the lobby or bar and making use of the access.
presumably why they offer it in the first place - to attract
customers. You go in to use the wifi and decide to order a coffee or
whatever.
Phil
--
Remember - Global Warming is only a weather forecast :-)
Paul Harper wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:51:04 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It is NOT the responsibility of the owner to make sure it is obvious they
>>don't want you to use it.
>
>
> Yes it is. If you put something into the public domain, you're liable
> and responsible for it.
>
> Broadcasting an unsecure wireless network is putting it into the
> public domain.
It may or may not be. Very often, the express intent is that the network
is available for anyone to use. Since so many individuals and businesses
intentionally freely open their networks for anyone to use, it is the
network owner's responsibility to indicate if they are not intending
that their unsecure network be used.
It could be argued that if the SSID is "default," "Netgear," "Linksys,"
etc., that this is an indication that the network owner is simply
clueless, and does not intend to share their connection. On the other
hand, were I to not secure my network, I would make a point of keeping
the factory default SSID because doing so would indicate that I did
nothing to induce people to use my network, they did so on their own.
Analogies involving garage doors, gates, etc, are especially irrelevant,
because there is no expectation by anyone that they are invited to enter
a yard or house, but there is a general knowledge that free wireless
networks are pervasive, and that these networks are insecure. This is
the case in the U.S. anyway.
In article <t64ve1dincun8ejos60plc39hd9cna0d37@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
wrote:
> >No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
> >invitation.
>
> That is an opinion, not a legal ruling.
It may not have legal standing, but it's more than an "opinion".
What do the letters "SSID" stand for?
Does the expression imply anything to do with an offer, or permission?
In article <wLPHe.7026$p%3.33869@typhoon.sonic.net>, Sms wrote:
> Wireless is often not charged for, and
> there is an expectation that it is okay to use an available wireless
> network, unless the owner says otherwise;
>
*You* might have that expectation, but I was brought up to recognise
that other people's property is theirs unless they choose to offer the
use of it to me.
Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <t64ve1dincun8ejos60plc39hd9cna0d37@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
> wrote:
>
>>>No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
>>>invitation.
>>
>>
>>That is an opinion, not a legal ruling.
>
>
> It may not have legal standing, but it's more than an "opinion".
>
> What do the letters "SSID" stand for?
"SSID: SSID is an acronym for Service Set Identifier. The SSID is a
sequence of up to 32 letters or numbers that is the ID, or name, of a
wireless local area network. The SSID is set by a network administrator
and for open wireless networks, the SSID is broadcast to all wireless
devices within range of the network access point. A closed wireless
network does not broadcast the SSID, requiring users to know the SSID to
access the network."
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:43:08 GMT, SMS in message
<news:0GSHe.7064$p%3.33963@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> In article <t64ve1dincun8ejos60plc39hd9cna0d37@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
>>>>invitation.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is an opinion, not a legal ruling.
>>
>> It may not have legal standing, but it's more than an "opinion".
>>
>> What do the letters "SSID" stand for?
>
> "SSID: SSID is an acronym for Service Set Identifier.
Precisely. It is an identifier, nothing more.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
It is much easier to be critical than to be correct
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:43:08 GMT, SMS in message
> <news:0GSHe.7064$p%3.33963@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>>>In article <t64ve1dincun8ejos60plc39hd9cna0d37@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
>>>>>invitation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That is an opinion, not a legal ruling.
>>>
>>>It may not have legal standing, but it's more than an "opinion".
>>>
>>>What do the letters "SSID" stand for?
>>
>>"SSID: SSID is an acronym for Service Set Identifier.
>
>
> Precisely. It is an identifier, nothing more.
"A closed wireless network does not broadcast the SSID, requiring users
to know the SSID to access the network."
Mike wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:01:06 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>There is an expectation that some things in society are often not
>>>charged for.
>>
>>Indeed.
>>
>>But internet access is not one of those things. (at least in the UK)
>>
>>It is very occasionally that you will find a person or business
>>deliberately offering free access.
>>
>>
>>>The same applies for wireless. Wireless is often not charged for,
>>
>>No. It is *very occasionally* not charged for.
>
>
> Perhaps this will change in the UK as Internet access becomes routine
> and ubiquitous.
Possibly, but the UK appears to be worse than even the U.S. in terms of
the hammerlock that the telecom companies have on the government. Just
look at wireless phones in the UK, they still have CPP, which by all
accounts results in tariffs that are about 2x what they are in the U.S..
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:10:57 GMT, SMS in message
<news:54THe.7073$p%3.33969@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:43:08 GMT, SMS in message
>> <news:0GSHe.7064$p%3.33963@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <t64ve1dincun8ejos60plc39hd9cna0d37@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
>>>>>>invitation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That is an opinion, not a legal ruling.
>>>>
>>>>It may not have legal standing, but it's more than an "opinion".
>>>>
>>>>What do the letters "SSID" stand for?
>>>
>>>"SSID: SSID is an acronym for Service Set Identifier.
>>
>> Precisely. It is an identifier, nothing more.
>
> "A closed wireless network does not broadcast the SSID, requiring users
> to know the SSID to access the network."
So what?
That is not part of the definition.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
He has Van Gogh's ear for music.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:10:57 GMT, SMS in message
> <news:54THe.7073$p%3.33969@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Alex Heney wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:43:08 GMT, SMS in message
> >> <news:0GSHe.7064$p%3.33963@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In article <t64ve1dincun8ejos60plc39hd9cna0d37@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
> >>>>>>invitation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That is an opinion, not a legal ruling.
> >>>>
> >>>>It may not have legal standing, but it's more than an "opinion".
> >>>>
> >>>>What do the letters "SSID" stand for?
> >>>
> >>>"SSID: SSID is an acronym for Service Set Identifier.
> >>
> >> Precisely. It is an identifier, nothing more.
> >
> > "A closed wireless network does not broadcast the SSID, requiring users
> > to know the SSID to access the network."
>
> So what?
>
> That is not part of the definition.
Very creative snipping.
"SSID is set by a network administrator and for open wireless networks,
the SSID is broadcast to all wireless devices within range of the
network access point."
This is precisely the point. If the SSID is broadcast, then it's an
open wireless network. If the network is not intended for open access
then either the SSID is not broadcast, and/or the network is secured by
WEP, WAP, or MAC filtering. The quick-set-up instructions of wireless
routers explain exactly how to do this.
If someone turns on their notebook PC and it automatically connects to
an unsecured wireless network, it is not their responsibility to know
if it is one of millions of free access wireless networks, or if the
owner of the network simply neglected to set up security.
scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:10:57 GMT, SMS in message
>><news:54THe.7073$p%3.33969@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:43:08 GMT, SMS in message
>>>><news:0GSHe.7064$p%3.33963@typhoon.sonic.net > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <t64ve1dincun8ejos60plc39hd9cna0d37@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
>>>>>>>>invitation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is an opinion, not a legal ruling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It may not have legal standing, but it's more than an "opinion".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What do the letters "SSID" stand for?
>>>>>
>>>>>"SSID: SSID is an acronym for Service Set Identifier.
>>>>
>>>>Precisely. It is an identifier, nothing more.
>>>
>>>"A closed wireless network does not broadcast the SSID, requiring users
>>>to know the SSID to access the network."
>>
>>So what?
>>
>>That is not part of the definition.
>
>
> Very creative snipping.
>
> "SSID is set by a network administrator and for open wireless networks,
> the SSID is broadcast to all wireless devices within range of the
> network access point."
>
> This is precisely the point. If the SSID is broadcast, then it's an
> open wireless network. If the network is not intended for open access
> then either the SSID is not broadcast, and/or the network is secured by
> WEP, WAP, or MAC filtering. The quick-set-up instructions of wireless
> routers explain exactly how to do this.
>
> If someone turns on their notebook PC and it automatically connects to
> an unsecured wireless network, it is not their responsibility to know
> if it is one of millions of free access wireless networks, or if the
> owner of the network simply neglected to set up security.
>
What if the SSID is set to 'Fuck off, no freeloaders" then?
On 2 Aug 2005 17:20:36 -0700, scharf.steven@gmail.com in message
<news:1123028435.996570.53000@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com> wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:10:57 GMT, SMS in message
>> <news:54THe.7073$p%3.33969@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:43:08 GMT, SMS in message
>>>> <news:0GSHe.7064$p%3.33963@typhoon.sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <t64ve1dincun8ejos60plc39hd9cna0d37@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No there isn't. The SSID is simply an identification, not an
>>>>>>>>invitation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is an opinion, not a legal ruling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It may not have legal standing, but it's more than an "opinion".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What do the letters "SSID" stand for?
>>>>>
>>>>>"SSID: SSID is an acronym for Service Set Identifier.
>>>>
>>>> Precisely. It is an identifier, nothing more.
>>>
>>> "A closed wireless network does not broadcast the SSID, requiring users
>>> to know the SSID to access the network."
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> That is not part of the definition.
>
> Very creative snipping.
>
I snipped to the point.
The question wasn't "what is an encyclopedia entry for SSID", but what is
the definition.
> "SSID is set by a network administrator and for open wireless networks,
> the SSID is broadcast to all wireless devices within range of the
> network access point."
>
> This is precisely the point.
It isn't even remotely close to a point.
> If the SSID is broadcast, then it's an
> open wireless network. If the network is not intended for open access
> then either the SSID is not broadcast, and/or the network is secured by
> WEP, WAP, or MAC filtering.
If you honestly believe that then you are an idiot.
Please stop trying to justify theft.
>
> If someone turns on their notebook PC and it automatically connects to
> an unsecured wireless network, it is not their responsibility to know
> if it is one of millions of free access wireless networks, or if the
> owner of the network simply neglected to set up security.
You are wrong.
It IS their responsibility. At least in this country. Yours may have
"millions of free access networks", although I doubt it. But even if we
did, it would *still* be the responsibility of the person connecting to
ensure they had permission.
The crime does require intent, so leaving their computer set up to just
connect to whatever it happens to find probably would not result in a
conviction.
But deliberately seeking out "open" networks would - and HAS.
--
Alex Heney
Global Villager
Crime doesn't pay... does that mean my job is a crime?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTPLUSDOTcom
> What if the SSID is set to 'Fuck off, no freeloaders" then?
Some people might think that you're joking, because anyone concerned
about freeloaders would use some sort of security. Or they may think
that you've chosen that SSID as protection, "honest judge, my SSID
implied that I didn't want anyone using my network, it's not my fault
that the neighborhood crack pusher was using it."
Excuse me for butting in but what do you think about some stores that
leave bags of mulch, bricks or other supplies outside overnight. I
suppose one could say they are offering it to anyone who would care to
help themselves.
Agent777 wrote:
> Excuse me for butting in but what do you think about some stores that
> leave bags of mulch, bricks or other supplies outside overnight. I
> suppose one could say they are offering it to anyone who would care to
> help themselves.
Yet another bad analogy. There is no expectation that any store would
give away its products for free, but many businesses and individuals
intentionally allow free use of their wireless networks. The ones that
decide not to allow free access simply secure their networks.
If some other posters here are correct, free wireless is not common in
some countries, but in the U.S. it is very widespread. So widespread in
fact, that some cable companies and phone companies are trying to get
laws passed that restrict it because they are justifiably worried that
free access will result in less subscriptions.
Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> 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.
Actually... I've worked in the communications industry for more
than 40 years, and have a *very* well developed understanding of
exactly those implications.
There are a lot of people who get the idea that "broadcast" means
you can do what you like with it, but the legal facts are that
it is not true.
It is also not true that the term "broadcast", when applied to
the SSID, is the same as you think it is!
As I've noted previously, if you broadcast your SSID it means
you guarantee that it is visible at short intervals. If you
*don't* broadcast the SSID, then it is *still available* (and
still fits the *legal* definition of a "broadcast", but the
intervals are dependant upon traffic usage. Either way you are
"broadcasting" your SSID to whatever extent the range of your
wireless coverage allows.
The significance, and the reason it is called a "broadcast", is
that legally a third party can *use* the information in a
broadcast. Hence you and I can discuss the fact that my
neighbor sends out an SSID of "ONE-CALL". One the other hand,
the data in his normal traffic packets is *not* a "broadcast",
but is a private communications and legally if either one of us
happens to gain access to that data it is illegal to use it or
divulge it to another party.
In the US, of course. Exactly what the technical differences are
in the UK I am not sure, but I doubt they are major.
Likewise in the US it is illegal to gain unauthorized entry to a
computer; hence connecting to a WLAN and actually accessing any
other host on it is a crime.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
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. The registration plate on your car isn't an invitation for
>somebody to drive it away, is it?
Need an invitation? What could be more inviting than "Please Login:".
It asked me to login, so I did.
The Florida law that makes "unauthorized" network access a felony
requires that the user get "permission" from network owner. I realize
that the UK might be different, but methinks that the legality hangs
on this point. If you have permission, it's legal. Without
permission, it's criminal. That leaves the question of what
constitutes permission. Some document signed by the network owner
would be nice, but rather impractical. Some kind of relationship
(business, personal, tenant) might also imply permission. No easy
answer for what constitutes permission.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> 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
A *lot* of people don't lock their doors. I lived in a house
for 20 years that didn't even *have* a lock on the door.
>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.
And if you *know* that it is intended to be available for your
use, then clearly you can legally use it. The idea that just
because you can physically gain access implies permission is
ridiculous at best, and at worst it approaches perversion to
tell impressionable people that they have the right to invade
someone else's property just because they can! If, because of
your encouragement, even one person's network and privacy are
invaded, that is bad. But it would be a horrible tragedy if
someone you encourage ends up being convicted of a crime and
spends time in jail...
>Find another analogy, if you can, because the garage analogy
>doesn't apply here. It's not easy to find an appropriate analogy
You aren't paying attention. The analogy was not mine, and *my*
point was that it doesn't apply here. There are *no* exact
analogies, and the appropriate point is that it is morally and
often legally *wrong* to connect to a WLAN just because it is
not sufficiently secured to keep you out.
*That* is the bottom line, and there is no escaping responsibility.
>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.
And if you *know* that to be the case, then using it is
perfectly acceptable.
>2. Unsecured wireless networks that are not intended to be
>available to anyone that wants to use them.
And if you don't know that it is *intended* to be available,
using it is *dishonest*.
>The operators of the first type are either altruistic, or they
>are a business that sees an upside to providing free access.
Which has legal significance, because they explicitly have
authorized use of their property.
>The operators of the second type are either lazy, clueless, or
>don't really care if someone else uses their network.
Which has no legal significance, because none of those
characteristics reduces or allows abuse of their legal rights.
>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.
That is indeed a complication. But what the computer does
automatically is not an indication of the user's intent, legal
or otherwise.
>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.
That is true. Some people think it makes no difference, but
even if you are innocent it won't be fun going through the
system that proves it.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Paul Harper <paul@harper.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:45:35 +0100, Alex Heney <me8@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>No it isn't - you're just being too juvenile to admit it.
The problem is that you don't understand what the SSID is, what
it means to broadcast it, or why that is done.
Anyone who thinks disabling "SSID Broadcast" is the correct
configuration for a wireless AP, is wrong.
Anyone who thinks disabling "SSID Broadcast" hides the SSID, is
wrong.
Anyone who thinks enabling "SSID Broadcast" is an invitation
hasn't got a clue.
It is "broadcast" for the explicit purpose of allowing other
networks to *avoid* interference!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Re: Hijacking a broadband connection 
Linear Mode
