I have a broadband connection, a wireless router and a laptop.
This setup worked fine for a long time, however recently next door has
put wireless in.
Since then my laptop keeps disconnecting from my home wireless and
picking up next door's wireless connection, it's really annoying - can
anyone help please? What can I do to rectify this?
>Hi,
>
>I have a broadband connection, a wireless router and a laptop.
>
>This setup worked fine for a long time, however recently next door has
>put wireless in.
>
>Since then my laptop keeps disconnecting from my home wireless and
>picking up next door's wireless connection, it's really annoying - can
>anyone help please? What can I do to rectify this?
>
>Regards, James
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:01:10 -0800 (PST), Jellis <jellis14@talk21.com>
wrote in
<e7ea8881-a8b4-4a08-818d-a4cef3639224@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>I have a broadband connection, a wireless router and a laptop.
>
>This setup worked fine for a long time, however recently next door has
>put wireless in.
>
>Since then my laptop keeps disconnecting from my home wireless and
>picking up next door's wireless connection, it's really annoying - can
>anyone help please? What can I do to rectify this?
1. Configure your computer *not* to connect automatically to open
networks.
2. Change the SSID on your wireless router to something unique.
(I recommend your address and/or phone number.)
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:11:07 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> 2. Change the SSID on your wireless router to something unique.
>> (I recommend your address and/or phone number.)
>
>Is it wise to broadcast the physical location of your router so plainly?
Yes. I do that with most of my access points using either the address
or business name. The idea is that if someone else appears with a
wireless network, and there's some manner of interference, it is
possible to locate the owner and negotiate a compromise or solution.
For example, one of my neighbors bought some kind of wireless video
contrivance that was spewing continuous traffic. That wouldn't be a
problem, as it would easy enough to change channels, but this devious
contraption had an automatic channel selection feature that caused it
to hop around. Something had to be done. The SSID was their family
name, so they were easy to find. I banged on the door, introduced
myself, explained the problem, and discovered that they were running
wireless because they couldn't figure out how to make the ethernet
connection work. Removing the CF wireless card caused the ethernet
jack to function.
Incidentally, I've seen SSID's with the Lat/Long location as the SSID.
I've read about software that will spew random SSID's with every
beacon broadcast.
On Nov 17, 4:58*pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:01:10 -0800 (PST), Jellis <jelli...@talk21.com>
> wrote in
> <e7ea8881-a8b4-4a08-818d-a4cef3639...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >I have a broadband connection, a wireless router and a laptop.
>
> >This setup worked fine for a long time, however recently next door has
> >put wireless in.
>
> >Since then my laptop keeps disconnecting from my home wireless and
> >picking up next door's wireless connection, it's really annoying - can
> >anyone help please? What can I do to rectify this?
>
> 1. Configure your computer *not* to connect automatically to open
> networks.
>
> 2. Change the SSID on your wireless router to something unique.
> (I recommend your address and/or phone number.)
> --
> Best regards, * FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
> John Navas * * *FAQ for Wi-Fi: *<http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
> * * * * * *Wi-Fi How To: *<http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: *<http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Excellent this sounds good cheers - I'll give this a go.
"Jellis" <jellis14@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:76303d3b-2249-4073-81d9-67cded92dc94@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 4:58 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:01:10 -0800 (PST), Jellis <jelli...@talk21.com>
> wrote in
> <e7ea8881-a8b4-4a08-818d-a4cef3639...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >I have a broadband connection, a wireless router and a laptop.
>
> >This setup worked fine for a long time, however recently next door has
> >put wireless in.
>
> >Since then my laptop keeps disconnecting from my home wireless and
> >picking up next door's wireless connection, it's really annoying - can
> >anyone help please? What can I do to rectify this?
>
> 1. Configure your computer *not* to connect automatically to open
> networks.
>
> 2. Change the SSID on your wireless router to something unique.
> (I recommend your address and/or phone number.)
> --
> Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
Excellent this sounds good cheers - I'll give this a go.
:-)
<quote>
""" Is it wise to broadcast the physical location of your router so plainly?
Yes. I do that with most of my access points using either the address
or business name. The idea is that if someone else appears with a
wireless network, and there's some manner of interference, it is
possible to locate the owner and negotiate a compromise or solution. """
</quote>
I think the guys right, its a great idea to call a network after the family name or the
house address. We have a couple of wireless networks fairly close that are named after
the family or the house address, this is a great idea as it gives an idea of range when
testing new aerials and looking for new networks to 'play' with ...... also provides some
good clues of who's network is getting stuffed, and what name to put on forms that you
fill in for them.
--
Regards
Trespasser
----------------------------
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes two or three gang up on me.
I'm not paranoid, I know your watching me. (o-o)
Show me a wireless network, I'll show you free broadband.
So you think this signatures bad ? You should see my handwriting
----------------------------
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:11:07 +0000, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> 2. Change the SSID on your wireless router to something unique.
>>> (I recommend your address and/or phone number.)
>> Is it wise to broadcast the physical location of your router so plainly?
>
> Yes. I do that with most of my access points using either the address
> or business name.
Business name - ok. Business address - matter of public record.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:50:39 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:11:07 +0000, Mark McIntyre
>> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> 2. Change the SSID on your wireless router to something unique.
>>>> (I recommend your address and/or phone number.)
>>> Is it wise to broadcast the physical location of your router so plainly?
>>
>> Yes. I do that with most of my access points using either the address
>> or business name.
>
>Business name - ok. Business address - matter of public record.
>
>Private address? Can't agree.
I'm with you, Mark. To a degree, I appreciate it when my neighbors
identify themselves via their SSID, but it's not something I do myself
or for any of the people I set up.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:50:39 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:11:07 +0000, Mark McIntyre
>> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> 2. Change the SSID on your wireless router to something unique.
>>>> (I recommend your address and/or phone number.)
>>> Is it wise to broadcast the physical location of your router so plainly?
>>
>> Yes. I do that with most of my access points using either the address
>> or business name.
>Business name - ok. Business address - matter of public record.
>Private address? Can't agree.
Well, ok. We can fine tune the level of privacy later. My attitude
is that the only thing of importance is the WPA/WPA2 encryption pass
phrase. Everything else can be as open as convenient. I don't have a
problem with announcing the location of my access points. Other
opinions vary from total privacy (announce nothing), to wide open.
Incidentally, there's an RFC for having the access point deliver its
location via DHCP:
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3825.html>
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:08:41 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote in <3li6i4di802m6ehtdo88crd0p2p93gjetk@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:50:39 +0000, Mark McIntyre
><markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:11:07 +0000, Mark McIntyre
>>> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> 2. Change the SSID on your wireless router to something unique.
>>>>> (I recommend your address and/or phone number.)
>>>> Is it wise to broadcast the physical location of your router so plainly?
>>>
>>> Yes. I do that with most of my access points using either the address
>>> or business name.
>>
>>Business name - ok. Business address - matter of public record.
>>
>>Private address? Can't agree.
>
>I'm with you, Mark. To a degree, I appreciate it when my neighbors
>identify themselves via their SSID, but it's not something I do myself
>or for any of the people I set up.
Because ... ???
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:08:41 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
> wrote in <3li6i4di802m6ehtdo88crd0p2p93gjetk@4ax.com>:
>
>> I'm with you, Mark. To a degree, I appreciate it when my neighbors
>> identify themselves via their SSID, but it's not something I do myself
>> or for any of the people I set up.
>
> Because ... ???
Because I don't want people trivially knowing which house a given
network is in.
Jeff's given some good reasons why you might want to set customers up
that way, especially commercial ones, but I don't think those really
apply to private networks.
And... anyone who needs Jeff to configure their router is hardly likely
to be able to figure out which of their neighbours is causing
interference, and even less likely to be able to figure out how to stop
interfering with other people's networks. :-)
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:50:39 +0000, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Business name - ok. Business address - matter of public record.
>> Private address? Can't agree.
>
> Well, ok. We can fine tune the level of privacy later. My attitude
> is that the only thing of importance is the WPA/WPA2 encryption pass
> phrase.
We could argue about this all month. Playing devil's advocate:
If I came across a router with a really good passphrase it would
indicate a tech-savvy owner. That in turn would indicate potential for
high-value computer kit. Which in turn indicates a good target for a
burglary. Now the address comes in handy.
Or say you're a stalker and you know your prey is in that apartment
building. Snoop their wireless SSID, now you know they're in appt 5.
In both cases you got the info without any digging into their trash,
network or mail. In fact, since they deliberately broadcast their
address, you haven't even committed any crime.
> Incidentally, there's an RFC for having the access point deliver its
> location via DHCP:
> <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3825.html>
Have you /ever/ found a retail AP that let you do that? I haven't. I
once owned a (wired) router that let you configure the SNMP responses
but it forgot them after every powerdown. Excellent design.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:43:42 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
<lM%Uk.102602$ym1.14038@en-nntp-09.am2.easynews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:08:41 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>> wrote in <3li6i4di802m6ehtdo88crd0p2p93gjetk@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> I'm with you, Mark. To a degree, I appreciate it when my neighbors
>>> identify themselves via their SSID, but it's not something I do myself
>>> or for any of the people I set up.
>>
>> Because ... ???
>
>Because I don't want people trivially knowing which house a given
>network is in.
My own take is that there's no real downside.
>Jeff's given some good reasons why you might want to set customers up
>that way, especially commercial ones, but I don't think those really
>apply to private networks.
My own take is that it can save a great deal of grief when there's an
offending wireless network.
>And... anyone who needs Jeff to configure their router is hardly likely
>to be able to figure out which of their neighbours is causing
>interference, and even less likely to be able to figure out how to stop
>interfering with other people's networks. :-)
My own take is that there are lots of competent computer folks around.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:52:16 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
<kU%Uk.128393$c47.55123@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com>:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:50:39 +0000, Mark McIntyre
>> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
> >
>>> Business name - ok. Business address - matter of public record.
>>> Private address? Can't agree.
>>
>> Well, ok. We can fine tune the level of privacy later. My attitude
>> is that the only thing of importance is the WPA/WPA2 encryption pass
>> phrase.
>
>We could argue about this all month. Playing devil's advocate:
>
>If I came across a router with a really good passphrase it would
>indicate a tech-savvy owner.
How could you know it's a "really good passphrase" without actually
cracking it?
>That in turn would indicate potential for
>high-value computer kit. Which in turn indicates a good target for a
>burglary. Now the address comes in handy.
I think that's a huge stretch. There are much better/easier ways to
case potential targets, and computer gear is relatively low on the list
of priorities. (Think cash, jewelry, weapons, consumer electronics,
etc.).
>Or say you're a stalker and you know your prey is in that apartment
>building. Snoop their wireless SSID, now you know they're in appt 5.
An address in the SSID does not reveal the owner.
>In both cases you got the info without any digging into their trash,
>network or mail. In fact, since they deliberately broadcast their
>address, you haven't even committed any crime.
Burglary and stalking are both crimes no matter how the information is
obtained.
If you're really that paranoid, then you'd best not use wireless at all,
because a transmitter can be located by other means.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:52:16 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:50:39 +0000, Mark McIntyre
>> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
> >
>>> Business name - ok. Business address - matter of public record.
>>> Private address? Can't agree.
>>
>> Well, ok. We can fine tune the level of privacy later. My attitude
>> is that the only thing of importance is the WPA/WPA2 encryption pass
>> phrase.
>We could argue about this all month. Playing devil's advocate:
I'll play the devils side kick:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/slides/jeffl-wolf.html>
>If I came across a router with a really good passphrase it would
>indicate a tech-savvy owner. That in turn would indicate potential for
>high-value computer kit. Which in turn indicates a good target for a
>burglary. Now the address comes in handy.
>
>Or say you're a stalker and you know your prey is in that apartment
>building. Snoop their wireless SSID, now you know they're in appt 5.
>
>In both cases you got the info without any digging into their trash,
>network or mail. In fact, since they deliberately broadcast their
>address, you haven't even committed any crime.
Sorry, but I don't buy the reverse psychology theory. Sometimes it
works, usually it doesn't. In order to 2nd guess a criminal, you have
to actually be a criminal. I don't think either of us qualify. As I
understand it, criminals prefer easy targets. If things get
complicated, they blunder onward and find an easier target. Car
thieves are a good example.
>> Incidentally, there's an RFC for having the access point deliver its
>> location via DHCP:
>> <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3825.html>
>Have you /ever/ found a retail AP that let you do that? I haven't. I
>once owned a (wired) router that let you configure the SNMP responses
>but it forgot them after every powerdown. Excellent design.
RFC3825 was originally inspired by Cicso. To the best of my
knowledge, it hasn't appeared in any of their products. The orignal
inspiration was to avoid using RFC1712
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1712.html>
which uses DNS for the same functions and requires far too much
adminstrative overhead. I once asked several dynamic DNS providers if
they were willing to handle transcient geopositioning data in their
DNS records. After the initial confusion, the answer was something
like "no way in hell".
Using geographic DHCP extensions is also a good way to do lots of
things (such as geographic routing for mesh networks). I was working
on a prototype that used a similar protocol, but the dot.com funding
it went bust. The big problem was that the client required a custom
DHCP client in order to use the data.
>>> Incidentally, there's an RFC for having the access point deliver its
>>> location via DHCP:
>>> <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3825.html>
>
>> Have you /ever/ found a retail AP that let you do that? I haven't. I
>> once owned a (wired) router that let you configure the SNMP responses
>> but it forgot them after every powerdown. Excellent design.
>
> RFC3825 was originally inspired by Cicso. To the best of my
> knowledge, it hasn't appeared in any of their products. The orignal
> inspiration was to avoid using RFC1712
> <http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1712.html>
> which uses DNS for the same functions and requires far too much
> adminstrative overhead. I once asked several dynamic DNS providers if
> they were willing to handle transcient geopositioning data in their
> DNS records. After the initial confusion, the answer was something
> like "no way in hell".
>
> Using geographic DHCP extensions is also a good way to do lots of
> things (such as geographic routing for mesh networks). I was working
> on a prototype that used a similar protocol, but the dot.com funding
> it went bust. The big problem was that the client required a custom
> DHCP client in order to use the data.
>
>
One could just imagine a whole load of AP's delivered to forces in Iraq
and Afghanistan which gave out Lat. and Long.
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:52:16 +0000, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
> <kU%Uk.128393$c47.55123@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com>:
>
> How could you know it's a "really good passphrase" without actually
> cracking it?
You're quoted as saying to have nice long passphrases, you figure it out....
>> That in turn would indicate potential for
>> high-value computer kit. Which in turn indicates a good target for a
>> burglary. Now the address comes in handy.
>
> I think that's a huge stretch.
*shrug*
>and computer gear is relatively low on the list
> of priorities. (Think cash, jewelry,
the latter is too hard to fence and nobody keeps large sums of cash in
their houses. Oh sure, extras from CSI Miami have safes with $200,000 in
used bills, but, er, real people....
> weapons,
In the UK ?
> consumer electronics, etc.).
computers /are/ consumer electronics. Computers are highly resellable
and newsflash, houses with tech geeks in are likely to also have topend
TVs, DVDs, games consoles etc in...
>> Or say you're a stalker and you know your prey is in that apartment
>> building. Snoop their wireless SSID, now you know they're in appt 5.
>
> An address in the SSID does not reveal the owner.
You're too literal minded.
>> In both cases you got the info without any digging into their trash,
>> network or mail. In fact, since they deliberately broadcast their
>> address, you haven't even committed any crime.
>
> Burglary and stalking are both crimes no matter how the information is
> obtained.
Not relevant - reread what I said.
> If you're really that paranoid, then you'd best not use wireless at all,
None of these things particularly bother me because I don't have a house
full of expensive computer gear and top-end electronics. My PC is
home-made, the kids have a 2nd hand N66 etc.
> because a transmitter can be located by other means.
Sure, but why make it easy? Who was it that security is an onion?
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:52:16 +0000, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> We could argue about this all month. Playing devil's advocate:
>
> I'll play the devils side kick:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/slides/jeffl-wolf.html>
nice...
>> In both cases you got the info without any digging into their trash,
>> network or mail. In fact, since they deliberately broadcast their
>> address, you haven't even committed any crime.
>
> Sorry, but I don't buy the reverse psychology theory. Sometimes it
> works, usually it doesn't.
You may be right. I'll settle for "I value my privacy and don't like
broadcasting my location to all and sundry". I'm well aware that the
smarter people out there can figure it out anyway - but as you say...
> understand it, criminals prefer easy targets. If things get
> complicated, they blunder onward and find an easier target.
..... so having your AP's SSID as "SOMEWHERE_OTR" seems a good way to say
"nope, nothing easy here, try the next house".
> RFC3825 was originally inspired by Cicso. To the best of my
> knowledge, it hasn't appeared in any of their products.
I'm wild with astonishment.
If I had a quid for every idea a vendor asked for but then failed to
implement, I'd have, er, some money.
Bill Kearney wrote:
>> Because I don't want people trivially knowing which house a given
>> network is in.
>
> Then move to a better neighborhood,
The reverse actually if you think it through - move to a worse one. The
crims don't burgle their neighbours (nothing ot nick), they come burgle
in the nice part of town.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:33:50 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
<jBlVk.95821$yq3.36083@en-nntp-07.am2.easynews.com>:
>Bill Kearney wrote:
>>> Because I don't want people trivially knowing which house a given
>>> network is in.
>>
>> Then move to a better neighborhood,
>
>The reverse actually if you think it through - move to a worse one. The
>crims don't burgle their neighbours (nothing ot nick), they come burgle
>in the nice part of town.
You know that ... how?
USA Today?
The Wire?
"I think therefore I am?"
>> and seek some help for that paranoia.
>
>*shrug*. Or just a sense of privacy.
Surely you know it's not a privacy issue.
Or do you actually believe in security through obscurity?
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:25:31 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
<xtlVk.117009$Ic5.91852@en-nntp-04.am2.easynews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:52:16 +0000, Mark McIntyre
>> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
>> <kU%Uk.128393$c47.55123@en-nntp-06.am2.easynews.com>:
>>
>> How could you know it's a "really good passphrase" without actually
>> cracking it?
>
>You're quoted as saying to have nice long passphrases, you figure it out....
I must be dense -- you'll have to explain.
>>and computer gear is relatively low on the list
>> of priorities. (Think cash, jewelry,
>
>the latter is too hard to fence and nobody keeps large sums of cash in
>their houses. Oh sure, extras from CSI Miami have safes with $200,000 in
>used bills, but, er, real people....
You know this ... how?
FWIW, I based what I wrote on what local cops have told me.
>> because a transmitter can be located by other means.
>
>Sure, but why make it easy? Who was it that security is an onion?
The difference in difficulty is immaterial.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
John Navas wrote:
>> crims don't burgle their neighbours (nothing ot nick), they come burgle
>> in the nice part of town.
>
> You know that ... how?
I learned to read about 40 years ago, and its stood me in good stead
ever since.
The UK govt publishes maps of criminal activity by location. Various
interested bodies publish reams of research on the same subject.
> USA Today?
I'm in the UK....
> The Wire?
Never heard of it.
> "I think therefore I am?"
You've lost me there, Rene.
>>> and seek some help for that paranoia.
>> *shrug*. Or just a sense of privacy.
>
> Surely you know it's not a privacy issue.
> Or do you actually believe in security through obscurity?
Pejorative bullshit aside, its a fact that if they can't find you, they
can't burgle you.
Security isn't a one-stop shop - putting a big padlock on and walking
away - its a layered product which requires monitoring.
Sorry, I'm all out of being nice tonight. I'd forgotten just how
offensively annoying you were when you got started.
>>> because a transmitter can be located by other means.
>
>> Sure, but why make it easy? Who was it that security is an onion?
>
> The difference in difficulty is immaterial.
Uhuh, like between Snowdon and the Matterhorn you mean?
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:11:59 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
<39mVk.95822$yq3.70615@en-nntp-07.am2.easynews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>>> crims don't burgle their neighbours (nothing ot nick), they come burgle
>>> in the nice part of town.
>>
>> You know that ... how?
>
>I learned to read about 40 years ago, and its stood me in good stead
>ever since.
>
>The UK govt publishes maps of criminal activity by location. Various
>interested bodies publish reams of research on the same subject.
Interesting, but not terribly supportive of your claim.
(If you disagree, please feel free to be more specific.)
>> USA Today?
>
>I'm in the UK....
Daily Mail then.
>> Surely you know it's not a privacy issue.
>> Or do you actually believe in security through obscurity?
>
>Pejorative bullshit aside, its a fact that if they can't find you, they
>can't burgle you.
It's still trivially cheap and easy for them to find you.
Goggle "Wi-Fi Network Finder".
>Security isn't a one-stop shop - putting a big padlock on and walking
>away - its a layered product which requires monitoring.
Minor obscurity isn't a useful layer.
Worse, it may give a false sense of security.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:14:21 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
<hbmVk.95823$yq3.66401@en-nntp-07.am2.easynews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>> I must be dense
>
>No arguments
>
>> -- you'll have to explain.
>
>Sorry, I'm all out of being nice tonight. I'd forgotten just how
>offensively annoying you were when you got started.
I didn't think so -- thanks for the confirmation.
>>>> because a transmitter can be located by other means.
> >
>>> Sure, but why make it easy? Who was it that security is an onion?
>>
>> The difference in difficulty is immaterial.
>
>Uhuh, like between Snowdon and the Matterhorn you mean?
Google "Wi-Fi Finder".
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
>
> Interesting, but not terribly supportive of your claim.
> (If you disagree, please feel free to be more specific.)
>
Well, if your bored and have nothing to do.
<http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap4.pdf>
associated table
<http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rd...ickout&ns_url=[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap4.xls]>
On 21/11/2008 17:47, LR wrote:
> On 21/11/2008 16:42, John Navas wrote:
>
>>
>> Interesting, but not terribly supportive of your claim.
>> (If you disagree, please feel free to be more specific.)
>>
> Well, if your bored and have nothing to do.
> <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap4.pdf>
> associated table
> <http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rd...ickout&ns_url=[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap4.xls]>
>
>
> <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap6.pdf>
> associated table
> <http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rd...ickout&ns_url=[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap6.xls]>
>
>
> <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/bcs0708tech1.pdf>
>
> <http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rd...ickout&ns_url=[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/laa1b.xls]>
>
>
>
> <http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rds/s?rds.interactive-crime-map&ns_type=clickout&ns_url=%5Bhttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html%5D>
>
>
> <http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/rds/s?rds.interactive-tabulations&ns_type=clickout&ns_url=%5Bhttp://212.78.84.22/superweb/login.do?guest=guest%5D>
>
>
> As Mark said there are many more available without having to ask your
> local Police Authority.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
My local Police Authority map is not particularly good so I will provide
a link to Cumbria police and the city of Carlisle, more misspent youth,
where the information is a bit more detailed. As it says click on the
Ward name in the list.
<http://www.cumbria.police.uk/howwearedoing_3674.htm>
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:11:59 +0000, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
> <39mVk.95822$yq3.70615@en-nntp-07.am2.easynews.com>:
>
>> The UK govt publishes maps of criminal activity by location. Various
>> interested bodies publish reams of research on the same subject.
>
> Interesting, but not terribly supportive of your claim.
You asked me how I knew. I told you. Its hardly my problem you don't
like the answer. You've been caught out. Oops.
Enough, no more, you're trolling again.
> (If you disagree, please feel free to be more specific.)
>
>>> USA Today?
>> I'm in the UK....
>
> Daily Mail then.
*spit*.
>> Security isn't a one-stop shop - putting a big padlock on and walking
>> away - its a layered product which requires monitoring.
>
> Minor obscurity isn't a useful layer.
Rubbish.
> Worse, it may give a false sense of security.
Only to the clueless, of which group you seem increasingly to be one.
Wireless Disconnects 
Linear Mode
