Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected Jammie
Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

What else do they know about you if you file share songs or movies?

It seems they know whether or not you're using a wireless router and what
the internal IP address is (192.168.m.n) according to this news article.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html

"The Charter IP address identified the night of the downloading was
24.179.199.117, according to testimony from Edgar and Weaver. Had a
wireless router been used, the internal private IP address assigned by the
router would also have been detected by investigators, he claimed -- likely
beginning with 192.168."

So, they know your
- Name & address you provided to the isp
- IP Address assigned to you by the isp
- Computer IP address assigned by the router
- Songs or movies you share on your computer with limewire or bittorrent
- Songs or movies you download with kazaa or azureus
- ?

What else do they know about you if you file share songs or movies?

In article <8dOMi.57413$YL5.28113@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> ,
onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected Jammie
> Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

NO, not at all.

The fact is that the PUBLIC IP you use can be tracked and is recorded by
the ISP. You run a service that shares files, or you just download them,
the router does not block their ability to see you connect to their
download site and track the number/content that you download.

So, All the RIAA needs is your IP and they can get the rest from the
ISP. They don't need to know your LAN (private) address to find you.

when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
needed.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
> needed.

But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?

For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?

Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> ,
onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
> > when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
> > needed.
>
> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
>
> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?
>
> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
records....

Face it, if you break the law you don't have much to complain about.

The person responsible for the internet connection is first, then the
computer owner, and then you can guess if one person in the 5 will rat
the others out.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> records....

"On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
from 'right outside her window.'"
(http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html

So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
took the stand for about 90 minutes."

Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
for the search warrant to see.

Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
anyway.

Would an additional PeerGuardian freeware firewall (in addition to the
wireless router) also have provided basic protection to Jammie from Safenet
eavesdropping?

In article <DiPMi.138$wF3.29@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
> > No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> > from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> > records....
>
> "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
> Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
> from 'right outside her window.'"
> (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html
>
> So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
> her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
> attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
> took the stand for about 90 minutes."
>
> Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
> asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
> for the search warrant to see.

So, a person that isn't guilty removes the drive because there is
nothing to hide. A person that didn't even know it was happening removed
a hard drive because of something they don't know about.

> Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
> file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
> computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
> partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
> occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
> anyway.

So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
functions that trigger in case of a police action?

> Would an additional PeerGuardian freeware firewall (in addition to the
> wireless router) also have provided basic protection to Jammie from Safenet
> eavesdropping?

Fact, all that is needed is to know the public IP, no firewall will
prevent that from being detected/seen by the download site.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:39:46 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
> functions that trigger in case of a police action?

Hi Leythos,
I'm pretty sure she's guilty but that isn't the technical point I'm trying
to get to. Let's assume, for now, that she is guilty. Now let's ask the
question again which is basically what would have protected her?

Whatever would have protected her is the same thing that protects you and
me and everyone else from someone else snooping on our activities. Even
legit activities. You wouldn't question why you lick and seal an envelope,
would you? Or why a phone booth has a privacy door. Or why a voting booth
has a privacy curtain. Or a bathroom door. Or ... well ... you get the
point (I hope). There are legitimate reasons for desiring privacy even from
snooping police.

All I ask is what software or hardware or technique would have protected
her from prying eyes?


> Fact, all that is needed is to know the public IP, no firewall will
> prevent that from being detected/seen by the download site.

I think we've already established that there is a basic right in this
country to be proven guilty which has a burden of proof which is MORE than
just an ISP (otherwise why did the lawyer argue she "could" have had a
wireless router and that mystery router "could" have been hacked)?

Is there a firewall or other solution that would protect our privacy?
Or is Leythos actually correct in that there is no software, hardware, or
technique which gives you any better privacy than that open connection she
apparently used?

"OneSolution" <onesolution@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8dOMi.57413$YL5.28113@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net...
> Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected
>
The same question seems to be regularly asked each month, with similar
answers being given. Check your newsfeed is working.
"NO" is the answer you are looking for.

X-No-Archive: Yes

On Oct 3, 9:18 am, OneSolution <onesolut...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:
> > No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> > from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> > records....
>
> "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
> Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
> from 'right outside her window.'"
> (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html


They do not HAVE to be right outside your Window. You can make an
antenna out of a Pringles can, or Nalley's Big Chunk Beef Stew can,
and be able to hit wireless routers from quite a distance away. You
can even BUY ready-to-use "cantennas" in some of the computer store,
and in most countries, its LEGAL to use one, including the United
States. Such antennas can be bought and used LEGALLY in America.

I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
security system to do it.

So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
to gain access to her wirelsss router.

>
> So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
> her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
> attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
> took the stand for about 90 minutes."
>
> Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
> asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
> for the search warrant to see.
>
> Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
> file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
> computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
> partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid

I use encryption when going to Australian Customs, becuase one pieve
of software that I use on my station, for making station IDs, and
arching my talk show could be considred a "tool" for breaking copy
protection under far more stricter DMCA-like laws in Australia. Alive
WMAMP3Recorder could, sooner or later, be declared illegal the new
Australian laws, becuase it can also be used to cirumvent DRM, which
has recently become illegal in Australia. To prevent problems with
Australian authorities, whenever I return to Australia from abroad, I
keep that softwware encrypted and locked, so Australian Customs will
not be able to open it or read it. As the saying goes "they cannot
prosecute what they cannot read".

> occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
> anyway.

Evidence Eliminator is the BEST of the bunch. That is what *I* use,
when travelling, before taking any of my radio station's computer
equipment through Customs, especially in Canada, England, Australia,
or the United States, where it has become quite common for Customs
agents in those countries to do on-the-spot foensic examination of
hard drives. You NEVER KNOW what might be on your computer that could
get you arrested in those countries, so I first bomb the equipment
with Norton Ghost, and then have Evidence Eliminator scrub all the
empty space. Despite some of their cheesy advertising, the software
does everything the advertisting says it will do.

X-No-Archive: Yes

On Oct 3, 9:39 am, Leythos <v...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <DiPMi.138$wF3...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> onesolut...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
> > > No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> > > from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> > > records....
>
> > "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
> > Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
> > from 'right outside her window.'"
> > (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html
>
> > So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
> > her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
> > attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
> > took the stand for about 90 minutes."
>
> > Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
> > asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
> > for the search warrant to see.
>
> So, a person that isn't guilty removes the drive because there is
> nothing to hide. A person that didn't even know it was happening removed
> a hard drive because of something they don't know about.
>
> > Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
> > file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
> > computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
> > partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
> > occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
> > anyway.
>
> So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
> functions that trigger in case of a police action?

Programs, such as Evidnence Eliminator, however, are LEGAL to purchase
and use. So she would NOT have broken any laws, by using programs,
such as Evidence Eliminator, KillDisk, or one of numerous other
programs on the market sold for this purpose. I know that there have
been calls in Britain to ban such programs there, but that would be
hard to enforce, becuase most of the companies making these programs,
except Evidence Eliminator, are based in Eastern European or Middle
Eastern countries. In other words, if they did ban such programs in
England, the makers of KillDisk, for example, would be NOT SUIBJECT to
prosecution in Britain, becuase KillDisk is manufactured and sold from
RUSSIA, that makes the authors of KillDisk, and their company, ONLY
subject to RUSSIAN LAWS, and British law DOES NOT APPLY in RUSSIA.

If she had used one of these programs, she could not be prosecuted for
purchasing or using such software, under current laws.

In article <1191537468.980076.55230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:


> I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
> boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
> many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
> wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
> Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
> post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
> Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
> GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
> arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
> someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
> bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
> Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
> security system to do it.


Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.

>
> So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
> then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
> and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
> are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
> states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
> break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
> to gain access to her wirelsss router.

So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
secede?


>

X_

On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
>
> chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
> > boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
> > many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
> > wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
> > Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
> > post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
> > Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
> > GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
> > arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
> > someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
> > bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
> > Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
> > security system to do it.
>
> Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
> figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.

Well, the admins at GoldenSkate and Figure Skating Universe that I
have talked to about this have TOLD me that it is LEGAL for live-
bloggers to hiijack nearby wireless access points, for sending back
reports, as long as they do not crack any password or other security
scheme to connect, and as long as they are not in Canada or England.
They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this

>
>
>
> > So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
> > then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
> > and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
> > are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
> > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
> > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
> > to gain access to her wirelsss router.
>
> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
> were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
> secede?

I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.

X-No-Archive: Yes


On Oct 3, 12:38 pm, Juergen Nieveler
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> OneSolution <onesolut...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
>
> Depends on your country, the judge, etc... but if the ISP contract was
> signed by you, you're the first to get sued.
>
> In some countries, YOU then have to prove that it was somebody else...
> IANAL, YMMV, etc.
>
> > Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?
>
> In Germany a woman recently tried that defense. Got charged for aiding
> and abetting then, as the judge ruled that everybody who runs a
> wireless router can be expected to either learn about the risks or pay
> for somebody to configure it properly.


As I had said already, its the computer crime laws of most
jurisdictions. Outside of Canada, England, and a handful of U.S.
states, if you have an unsecured WAP, this it is considered PUBLIC in
the eyes of the law. Its so simple, if there is NO password,
encryption, or other security scheme saying "keep out", then you
CANNOT prosecute somoene who finds it and uses it, just for using your
access point. While they COULD be prosecuted for downloading pirated
music, if caught, they CANNOT be prosecuted JUST for using your
unsecured wireless access point. Why do you think all those lists of
open proxy servers exist on the Net? Because in most jursidctions it
is LEGAL to find one of the list and use it, until such time as the
put up the afforementioned security barriers.

In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:


> They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
> are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
> TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this
That isn't settled yet either way. Some places in the US have
specific laws. I read a rather interesting paper a couple days that
suggests it is illegal under the laws that regulate interception of
radio communications (which this is in essence). You may (heck probably
are) right, but it isn't all that settled.


>
> >
> >
> >
> > > So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
> > > then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
> > > and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
> > > are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
> > > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
> > > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
> > > to gain access to her wirelsss router.
> >
> > So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
> > were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
> > secede?
>
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
> Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
Of course that isn't anywhere near what you said. There are 49
states in the Union with no qualifiers. Also no real reason to cut
Hawaii out of the equation.

"OneSolution" <onesolution@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
>> needed.
>
> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?

http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+Awarde...rticle9143.htm

Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, as Thomas' loss is more formally known,
was the first lawsuit of its kind to proceed before a jury as well as a
landmark case that set precedent heavily favoring the RIAA in future legal
battles. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled that one could be guilty of
copyright infringement merely by the act of making copyrighted songs
available for download; as a result the RIAA did not need to establish that
Thomas at her computer at the time her was accessed by investigators, nor
did they need to prove that anyone actually downloaded the music she
offered.

>
> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the
> house?
>
> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...estimony-.html

"Trying to raise doubt among jurors, who said during jury selection they
were not computer savvy, Thomas' attorney Brian Tober suggested his client
was the victim of a zombie, a cracker, or a drone. He also suggested
somebody using her wireless connection from outside her Brainerd, Minnesota,
apartment window could have been responsible.
Computer forensics specialist Doug Jacobson, of Iowa State University,
testified that no wireless connection was used the night in question, based
on IP data embedded in the Kazaa traffic. And Thomas never testified that
she owned a wireless router. Tober never asked her."

If you do much reading on this it's clear that she put up a pretty
lame defense. One of her best hopes for an appeal is the ruling that the
RIAA didn't need to prove that anyone actually downloaded music from her.
Unless someone else is paying her legal bills she is well beyond the point
where even if she wins she loses.

TB

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

> X_
>
> On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
>>
>> chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
>>>boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
>>>many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
>>>wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
>>>Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
>>>post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
>>>Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
>>>GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
>>>arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
>>>someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
>>>bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
>>>Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
>>>security system to do it.
>>
>> Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
>>figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.
>
>
> Well, the admins at GoldenSkate and Figure Skating Universe that I
> have talked to about this have TOLD me that it is LEGAL for live-
> bloggers to hiijack nearby wireless access points, for sending back
> reports, as long as they do not crack any password or other security
> scheme to connect, and as long as they are not in Canada or England.
> They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
> are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
> TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this
>
>
>>
>>
>>>So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
>>>then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
>>>and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
>>>are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
>>>states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
>>>break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
>>>to gain access to her wirelsss router.
>>
>> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
>>were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
>>secede?
>
>
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces.

14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..

> So America has 49 states,
> Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
>

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

> X_
>
> On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
>>
>> chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
>>>boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
>>>many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
>>>wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
>>>Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
>>>post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
>>>Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
>>>GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
>>>arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
>>>someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
>>>bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
>>>Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
>>>security system to do it.
>>
>> Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
>>figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.
>
>
> Well, the admins at GoldenSkate and Figure Skating Universe that I
> have talked to about this have TOLD me that it is LEGAL for live-
> bloggers to hiijack nearby wireless access points, for sending back
> reports, as long as they do not crack any password or other security
> scheme to connect, and as long as they are not in Canada or England.
> They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
> are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
> TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this
>
>
>>
>>
>>>So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
>>>then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
>>>and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
>>>are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
>>>states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
>>>break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
>>>to gain access to her wirelsss router.
>>
>> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
>>were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
>>secede?
>
>
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces.

14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..
Your a fool son.

> So America has 49 states,
> Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
>

chilly8@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1191537468.980076.55230@k79g2000hse.googlegro ups.com:

[snip]

> I use encryption when going to Australian Customs, becuase one pieve
> of software that I use on my station, for making station IDs, and
> arching my talk show could be considred a "tool" for breaking copy
> protection under far more stricter DMCA-like laws in Australia. Alive
> WMAMP3Recorder could, sooner or later, be declared illegal the new
> Australian laws, becuase it can also be used to cirumvent DRM, which
> has recently become illegal in Australia. To prevent problems with
> Australian authorities, whenever I return to Australia from abroad, I
> keep that softwware encrypted and locked, so Australian Customs will
> not be able to open it or read it. As the saying goes "they cannot
> prosecute what they cannot read".

Carrying a chunk of encrypted data through national borders in todays
paranoid culture - a world where we have to take our shoes off before we
get on a plane - seems to me to be a sub-optimal solution.

Also, it's of doubtful use for the UK where RIPA means they could have
powers to force you to provide decryption keys or face a two year sentence.

In article <J7kNi.1021$hT1.906@pd7urf2no>, Brody <Brody@hotshot.com>
wrote:

> 14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..
> Your a fool son.

I think the OP just looked at the colo(u)rs on the map. Ten provinces,
plus the Yukon, NWT, Nunavit, and hmm ... well, it does say Newfoundland
_and_ Labrador, doesn't it?
--
W. Oates

In article <47061b45$0$14926$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <J7kNi.1021$hT1.906@pd7urf2no>, Brody <Brody@hotshot.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..
> > Your a fool son.
>
> I think the OP just looked at the colo(u)rs on the map. Ten provinces,
> plus the Yukon, NWT, Nunavit, and hmm ... well, it does say Newfoundland
> _and_ Labrador, doesn't it?

But you gotta remember that this was the person talking about "all 49
states".. geography (or counting) doesn't appear to be a strong suit.

On Oct 4, 5:59 pm, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
> > under Federal law, and the laws of 45
> > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
> > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
> > to gain access to her wirelsss router.
>
> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
> were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
> secede?

No, it was Texas...we seceded and formed our own planet.

This could have saved her, perhaps?

https://www.secure-tunnel.com/genera...ons/st_faq.cfm

The only way to do it is to go to a pubic wi-fi place to download. You
will be safe then.

In article <1191649546.662002.247720@19g2000hsx.googlegroups. com>,
zcarenow@yahoo.com says...
> The only way to do it is to go to a pubic wi-fi place to download. You
> will be safe then.

Only if they don't keep logs. Since a MAC is unique, if the public WI-FI
spot was to register your MAC before giving you the key, you would be no
safer.

To allow anonymous access is stupid.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Oct 4, 6:31 pm, chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
> Got it? Good.

Your original post was "49 states in the Union", whereas the Union is
the United Sates of America...there are 50 states in the Union

Your road map simply does not show off the states in the Union, only
those on the North American land mass.

Got it? Good.

In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

>
> I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
> Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.

You are an idiot. Got it? Good.

PS: Can you list those Canadian provinces for us? And what is that
elusive 49th state that you've found on "the landmass of North America?"

You truly are n idiot. Got it? Good. Bloody foreigners.
--
W. Oates

In article <4708cd81$0$14945$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups .com>,
> chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
> > U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
> > Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
> > Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
>
> You are an idiot. Got it? Good.
>
> PS: Can you list those Canadian provinces for us? And what is that
> elusive 49th state that you've found on "the landmass of North America?"

The landmass of NA would include Alaska, which is my guess. I thought
it was a rather inelegant backpedal, but there it is.

>
> You truly are n idiot. Got it? Good. Bloody foreigners.
And they say the US struggles with reading maps.

On 6 Oct 2007 18:55:21 GMT, Juergen Nieveler wrote:

> The MAC usually can be changed ;-)

Is this the recommended procecedure for "anonymous" public hot spot?

1. Find public hot spot (using http://www.wififreespot.com)
2. Turn off your wireless transmitter & go to that public hotspot
3. Change your MAC address to DEADBEEFCAFE (using MacMakeUp freeware)
4. Change your PC name (My Computer, Properties, Computer Name)
5. Change your login ID (create one for this session only)
6. Set up your (encrypted?) sandbox (sandboxie or truecrypt freeware)
7. ??? anything else ???
8. Start your browser sandboxed or on an encrypted disk
9. When done, turn off your wireless transmitter again.
10. Return all settings back to normal (non hotspot settings)

Are we safe if we follow these ten easy hotspot steps?

In article <Xns99C1D474A11DAjuergennieveler@nieveler.org>,
juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de says...
> Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> > Only if they don't keep logs. Since a MAC is unique, if the public WI-FI
> > spot was to register your MAC before giving you the key, you would be no
> > safer.
>
> The MAC usually can be changed ;-)

Yes, it can, but most people don't have a clue.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:45:41 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , Slacker
<slacker7@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>Are we safe if we follow these ten easy hotspot steps?

Isn't the best way to be safe simply not to do illegal stuff with a
wireless hotspot connection?

--
Mark McIntyre