The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Let's not assume the conclusion though -- let's not say "it's illegal because it's illegal."
"Accessing a computer in a way that exceeds authorization is a crime" -- this needs to be discussed and argued separately.
"If someone connects their computer to a device that offers its services to a public radio service, and someone connects to it, that connection exceeds authorization" -- this also needs to be discussed and argued separately.
Or the flip-side: does it not exceed authorization, because the act of plugging their computer into a device that offers some computing services unconditionally to a public radio service ITSELF authorizes people to use it? That too needs to be discussed and argued separately.
Or "sending radio messages on an unregulated public radio band should have the same legal meaning as physically pressing keyboard keys on a computer you have no authorization to access." -- this too needs to be discussed and argued separately.
mspencer on
MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Well, I think it depends.
My home wireless router won't connect with my DS, so when I want to play online I use my neighbors.
I can't imagine the DS takes up much bandwidth, and it's not like I can DO anything of harm.
Technically it's still accessing a machine that you do not own or have been given permission to connect to, and so not really legal.
I guess, but it's not like the FBI will bust in my house, kicking down the door, breaking my windows and shit, screaming, "MUTHA FUCKA, YUH UNDA ARREST FOR STEALIN' YUH NAY-BOHHRSSS INTERNETS. YOU GOING TO JAIL, FAGGOT!"
I hate to dig this up, but this thread seems like a more appropriate place for my question than making a new thread.
I've just moved to a new, fairly isolated city. I'm interested in doing some wardriving, or whatever you kids call it these days, to see just how many hot-spots are across the city. I'm not interested in stealing internet access; I've got that at home anyway. I'm mostly interested in just seeing how many wireless access points are used across the city, particularly in the downtown core, and I'm also interested in seeing how many public, free-to-access wifi spots there are as well.
Now, I just got a brand new laptop but unfortunately, the internal wireless card is woefully ineffective. It's a regular Dell Inspiron, with a built-in Dual Band minicard. I'm looking to purchase a separate wireless card, preferably one with a decent antenna, to use for detecting all these AP's. Anyone have some suggestions for decent brand names, or even better, specific cards that are proven to work well?
Cycophant on
0
jackalFuck Yes. That is an orderly anal warehouse.Registered Userregular
I hate to dig this up, but this thread seems like a more appropriate place for my question than making a new thread.
I've just moved to a new, fairly isolated city. I'm interested in doing some wardriving, or whatever you kids call it these days, to see just how many hot-spots are across the city. I'm not interested in stealing internet access; I've got that at home anyway. I'm mostly interested in just seeing how many wireless access points are used across the city, particularly in the downtown core, and I'm also interested in seeing how many public, free-to-access wifi spots there are as well.
Now, I just got a brand new laptop but unfortunately, the internal wireless card is woefully ineffective. It's a regular Dell Inspiron, with a built-in Dual Band minicard. I'm looking to purchase a separate wireless card, preferably one with a decent antenna, to use for detecting all these AP's. Anyone have some suggestions for decent brand names, or even better, specific cards that are proven to work well?
When I was last on holiday in Aus the last few days before I was due to fly home I was in a hotel that charged a stupid amount of money if you wanted to use the hotel wifi.
After checking the other wifi networks I discovered some company had a wide open network, and by wide open I mean they had servers running with databases on that allowed read/write anonymous access I kid you not.
I did use it for essentially just browsing the web etc, I couldn't believe how lax their security was. Shocked the hell out of me.
Anyway, as to security for wireless.
If you want secure you use the maximum possible length wpa-psk key possible using the most random possible key.. for example there are plenty of wpa-psk generators online.
Mac filtering without encryption is the biggest false sense of security you can possibly have with wifi. MAC addresses can be changed/spoofed very easilly.
So, in general:
Disable SSID broadcasting
Use the strongest form of WPA-PSK with the largest key possible
Enable MAC filtering to just specific MAC addresses of your computer(s)
That said, while WEP is pretty damn weak I use it so my DS can go online. (at home)
At work i've setup wireless networks with the strongest possible encryption etc that I can use.
Or if it's just a personal at home network flip it off when you don't need to use it.
I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. It's not like taking from a public candy dish. It's not like stealing an unsecured car with keys in the ignition. It's broadcast to you with no restrictions and no way to tell if it was done on purpose or not. It's more like listening to someone else's radio when they have it turned up really loud. I could listen to my neighbor's police scanner instead of buying my own (if I cared to) because they've left one turned on loud enough to hear from my back yard for decades.
I leave a couple spare unsecured wireless routers set up at my place and my brother's apartment ON PURPOSE for anyone who want a little WiFi. Hell, my brother even works for the ISP. Do I have some stupid page telling people that they are authorized to use it? NO! I shouldn't have to. There's no reason to obligate myself to supply it. If they are online without doing anything special, then of course they can use it. The examples of prosecution in the past are examples of ignorance just like the gag poll that has always been on the netstumbler site (users responding "it's illegal" help show the ignorance). If someone using my bandwidth is ever interfering with my activities, I unplug the spare rounter and continue using my laptop through the remaining WPA-protected routers. Hell, if anything, it has actually secured my network by allowing me to maintain WPA instead of WEP for the Nintendo DS and removing the need to get onto my multi-client + fileserver gigabit network.
On the weekend I'm a security guard that is around when everyone is gone, and yes: When I see a candy dish placed on the shelf, I can assume that it's being offered to passers-by. Why else is it placed there?
CZroe on
0
jackalFuck Yes. That is an orderly anal warehouse.Registered Userregular
I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. It's not like taking from a public candy dish. It's not like stealing an unsecured car with keys in the ignition. It's broadcast to you with no restrictions and no way to tell if it was done on purpose or not. It's more like listening to someone else's radio when they have it turned up really loud. I could listen to my neighbor's police scanner instead of buying my own (if I cared to) because they've left one turned on loud enough to hear from my back yard for decades.
I leave a couple spare unsecured wireless routers set up at my place and my brother's apartment ON PURPOSE for anyone who want a little WiFi. Hell, my brother even works for the ISP. Do I have some stupid page telling people that they are authorized to use it? NO! I shouldn't have to. There's no reason to obligate myself to supply it. If they are online without doing anything special, then of course they can use it. The examples of prosecution in the past are examples of ignorance just like the gag poll that has always been on the netstumbler site (users responding "it's illegal" help show the ignorance). If someone using my bandwidth is ever interfering with my activities, I unplug the spare rounter and continue using my laptop through the remaining WPA-protected routers. Hell, if anything, it has actually secured my network by allowing me to maintain WPA instead of WEP for the Nintendo DS and removing the need to get onto my multi-client + fileserver gigabit network.
On the weekend I'm a security guard that is around when everyone is gone, and yes: When I see a candy dish placed on the shelf, I can assume that it's being offered to passers-by. Why else is it placed there?
The analogy breaks down when you say, "Why else is [the candy dish] placed there?" which is analagous to "Why is the AP insecure?" The answer to the second question is just as likely to be "ignorance" as it is to be "so others can use it."
Not securing your connection is the dumbest thing you can do. For god's sakes I'm pretty sure every router comes with a disc that will wizard you through putting a simple password on it. That is enough for 99% of people.
Hell my, Linksys has a button on the front of it that if pressed, it automatically configures to WPA encryption.
My favorite way of securing my wireless network is not by encrypting the signal, but instead by whitelisting MAC Adresses. Any MAC Address of a computer not entered into a list on my router cannot connect to the network. I believe this is an advantage to other networks due to possibly better network performance without encryption? That could be in my imagination though.
MAC addresses can be spoofed so easily, this is pretty much the same as not securing your network at all.
And would require someone to know my device's MAC Address.
And your computer's MAC Address is broadcast, unencrypted, in every single packet that you send.
I mean, how the fuck else will it know to filter? Seriously, people, even if you don't have a background in this stuff, it's easy to guess at how shit works!
sidenote: I deliberately leave my network open. If somebody needs quick Internet, then by all means go for it. If a guest is coming over with a laptop, I don't want to have to dig out the notebook full of passwords that I only use once a year if that. If anyone starts abusing it, that's when I'll lock it down.
Secure the computers, people, not the network. Relying on the network being inaccessible is dumb; even WPA can be cracked given enough time and intercepted packets.
edit: wow, I didn't realize that this thread was both old and six pages long. oops.
I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. It's not like taking from a public candy dish. It's not like stealing an unsecured car with keys in the ignition. It's broadcast to you with no restrictions and no way to tell if it was done on purpose or not. It's more like listening to someone else's radio when they have it turned up really loud. I could listen to my neighbor's police scanner instead of buying my own (if I cared to) because they've left one turned on loud enough to hear from my back yard for decades.
I leave a couple spare unsecured wireless routers set up at my place and my brother's apartment ON PURPOSE for anyone who want a little WiFi. Hell, my brother even works for the ISP. Do I have some stupid page telling people that they are authorized to use it? NO! I shouldn't have to. There's no reason to obligate myself to supply it. If they are online without doing anything special, then of course they can use it. The examples of prosecution in the past are examples of ignorance just like the gag poll that has always been on the netstumbler site (users responding "it's illegal" help show the ignorance). If someone using my bandwidth is ever interfering with my activities, I unplug the spare rounter and continue using my laptop through the remaining WPA-protected routers. Hell, if anything, it has actually secured my network by allowing me to maintain WPA instead of WEP for the Nintendo DS and removing the need to get onto my multi-client + fileserver gigabit network.
On the weekend I'm a security guard that is around when everyone is gone, and yes: When I see a candy dish placed on the shelf, I can assume that it's being offered to passers-by. Why else is it placed there?
The analogy breaks down when you say, "Why else is [the candy dish] placed there?" which is analagous to "Why is the AP insecure?" The answer to the second question is just as likely to be "ignorance" as it is to be "so others can use it."
That's not where the analogy breaks down, that's precisely where it strengthens. It's not the users job to ask why. It's there - There's no price tag on it. If the owner decides to take it down and stop offering it, so be it. You didn't hurt anything while it was available regardless of the owners intention to share or not. Ignorance is not an excuse for the owner and to the user using WiFi it is 100% no different than using unadvertised free WiFi at the library or anywhere else. If the owner didn't want to give the bandwidth, it's their fault for sharing it. It's a problem they can correct at any time should it ever become a problem and they become aware of it. They should not buy and use technology intended for publicly sharing Internet access (certainly one of its many uses) and then acuse someone of stealing when they inadvertantly share their own Internet access.
I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. It's not like taking from a public candy dish. It's not like stealing an unsecured car with keys in the ignition. It's broadcast to you with no restrictions and no way to tell if it was done on purpose or not. It's more like listening to someone else's radio when they have it turned up really loud. I could listen to my neighbor's police scanner instead of buying my own (if I cared to) because they've left one turned on loud enough to hear from my back yard for decades.
I leave a couple spare unsecured wireless routers set up at my place and my brother's apartment ON PURPOSE for anyone who want a little WiFi. Hell, my brother even works for the ISP. Do I have some stupid page telling people that they are authorized to use it? NO! I shouldn't have to. There's no reason to obligate myself to supply it. If they are online without doing anything special, then of course they can use it. The examples of prosecution in the past are examples of ignorance just like the gag poll that has always been on the netstumbler site (users responding "it's illegal" help show the ignorance). If someone using my bandwidth is ever interfering with my activities, I unplug the spare rounter and continue using my laptop through the remaining WPA-protected routers. Hell, if anything, it has actually secured my network by allowing me to maintain WPA instead of WEP for the Nintendo DS and removing the need to get onto my multi-client + fileserver gigabit network.
On the weekend I'm a security guard that is around when everyone is gone, and yes: When I see a candy dish placed on the shelf, I can assume that it's being offered to passers-by. Why else is it placed there?
The analogy breaks down when you say, "Why else is [the candy dish] placed there?" which is analagous to "Why is the AP insecure?" The answer to the second question is just as likely to be "ignorance" as it is to be "so others can use it."
That's not where the analogy breaks down, that's precisely where it strengthens. It's not the users job to ask why. It's there - There's no price tag on it. If the owner decides to take it down and stop offering it, so be it. You didn't hurt anything while it was available regardless of the owners intention to share or not. Ignorance is not an excuse for the owner and to the user using WiFi it is 100% no different than using unadvertised free WiFi at the library or anywhere else. If the owner didn't want to give the bandwidth, it's their fault for sharing it. It's a problem they can correct at any time should it ever become a problem and they become aware of it. They should not buy and use technology intended for publicly sharing Internet access (certainly one of its many uses) and then acuse someone of stealing when they inadvertantly share their own Internet access.
But leaving your access point wide open is what causes a lot of people problems these days when MP3's or other things are downloaded and the RIAA decides to try and monetarily rape you because it shows from your IP which was connected to your wireless router.
But leaving your access point wide open is what causes a lot of people problems these days when MP3's or other things are downloaded and the RIAA decides to try and monetarily rape you because it shows from your IP which was connected to your wireless router.
No kidding. You're not going to agree with your argument anymore after you're busted for downloading childporn, mp3s, movies, and warez.
cfgauss on
The hero and protagonist, whose story the book follows, is the aptly-named Hiro Protagonist: "Last of the freelance hackers and Greatest sword fighter in the world." When Hiro loses his job as a pizza delivery driver for the Mafia, he meets a streetwise young girl nicknamed Y.T. (short for Yours Truly), who works as a skateboard "Kourier", and they decide to become partners in the intelligence business.
I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. It's not like taking from a public candy dish. It's not like stealing an unsecured car with keys in the ignition. It's broadcast to you with no restrictions and no way to tell if it was done on purpose or not. It's more like listening to someone else's radio when they have it turned up really loud. I could listen to my neighbor's police scanner instead of buying my own (if I cared to) because they've left one turned on loud enough to hear from my back yard for decades.
I leave a couple spare unsecured wireless routers set up at my place and my brother's apartment ON PURPOSE for anyone who want a little WiFi. Hell, my brother even works for the ISP. Do I have some stupid page telling people that they are authorized to use it? NO! I shouldn't have to. There's no reason to obligate myself to supply it. If they are online without doing anything special, then of course they can use it. The examples of prosecution in the past are examples of ignorance just like the gag poll that has always been on the netstumbler site (users responding "it's illegal" help show the ignorance). If someone using my bandwidth is ever interfering with my activities, I unplug the spare rounter and continue using my laptop through the remaining WPA-protected routers. Hell, if anything, it has actually secured my network by allowing me to maintain WPA instead of WEP for the Nintendo DS and removing the need to get onto my multi-client + fileserver gigabit network.
On the weekend I'm a security guard that is around when everyone is gone, and yes: When I see a candy dish placed on the shelf, I can assume that it's being offered to passers-by. Why else is it placed there?
The analogy breaks down when you say, "Why else is [the candy dish] placed there?" which is analagous to "Why is the AP insecure?" The answer to the second question is just as likely to be "ignorance" as it is to be "so others can use it."
That's not where the analogy breaks down, that's precisely where it strengthens. It's not the users job to ask why. It's there - There's no price tag on it. If the owner decides to take it down and stop offering it, so be it. You didn't hurt anything while it was available regardless of the owners intention to share or not. Ignorance is not an excuse for the owner and to the user using WiFi it is 100% no different than using unadvertised free WiFi at the library or anywhere else. If the owner didn't want to give the bandwidth, it's their fault for sharing it. It's a problem they can correct at any time should it ever become a problem and they become aware of it. They should not buy and use technology intended for publicly sharing Internet access (certainly one of its many uses) and then acuse someone of stealing when they inadvertantly share their own Internet access.
But leaving your access point wide open is what causes a lot of people problems these days when MP3's or other things are downloaded and the RIAA decides to try and monetarily rape you because it shows from your IP which was connected to your wireless router.
They can't sue the ISP. Here in the US at least... that recent development in the UK sure does set a bad precedent (forcing the ISP to block P2P traffic).
But leaving your access point wide open is what causes a lot of people problems these days when MP3's or other things are downloaded and the RIAA decides to try and monetarily rape you because it shows from your IP which was connected to your wireless router.
They can't sue the ISP. Here in the US at least... that recent development in the UK sure does set a bad precedent (forcing the ISP to block P2P traffic).
They can't sue the ISP, but they could sue you, if you were the owner of that unsecured connection. Not likely to win, but the RIAA doesn't sue to win cases, they sue to scare people shitless enough to sign the check.
There was a local case in the Saginaw News this weekend that somebody successfully sued under laws intended to protect victims of cable theft (When your neighbor steals cable by connecting to your house line rather than the pole) for unauthorized wireless access. If it works (The idea is sound, but I doubt doubt the judge knew what he was doing, and I also doubt the law is worded to support it), it might make up for the woefully weak electronic trespassing laws.
Also, there was that case a few years ago regarding Home Depot - a mistake in how they were set up allowed outside systems to access the otherwise secure wireless network in the store through the cash registers. I know at least one person was convicted, and one other (Spoke at length at Notacon 3 about the matter) got off on technicalities with improperly filed warrants. I can't seem to find what law they were tried under, though.
Posts
"Accessing a computer in a way that exceeds authorization is a crime" -- this needs to be discussed and argued separately.
"If someone connects their computer to a device that offers its services to a public radio service, and someone connects to it, that connection exceeds authorization" -- this also needs to be discussed and argued separately.
Or the flip-side: does it not exceed authorization, because the act of plugging their computer into a device that offers some computing services unconditionally to a public radio service ITSELF authorizes people to use it? That too needs to be discussed and argued separately.
Or "sending radio messages on an unregulated public radio band should have the same legal meaning as physically pressing keyboard keys on a computer you have no authorization to access." -- this too needs to be discussed and argued separately.
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
that would be pretty cool.
I've just moved to a new, fairly isolated city. I'm interested in doing some wardriving, or whatever you kids call it these days, to see just how many hot-spots are across the city. I'm not interested in stealing internet access; I've got that at home anyway. I'm mostly interested in just seeing how many wireless access points are used across the city, particularly in the downtown core, and I'm also interested in seeing how many public, free-to-access wifi spots there are as well.
Now, I just got a brand new laptop but unfortunately, the internal wireless card is woefully ineffective. It's a regular Dell Inspiron, with a built-in Dual Band minicard. I'm looking to purchase a separate wireless card, preferably one with a decent antenna, to use for detecting all these AP's. Anyone have some suggestions for decent brand names, or even better, specific cards that are proven to work well?
http://hotspot.live.com/web/SearchView.aspx
Or if it's just a personal at home network flip it off when you don't need to use it.
I never asked for this!
I leave a couple spare unsecured wireless routers set up at my place and my brother's apartment ON PURPOSE for anyone who want a little WiFi. Hell, my brother even works for the ISP. Do I have some stupid page telling people that they are authorized to use it? NO! I shouldn't have to. There's no reason to obligate myself to supply it. If they are online without doing anything special, then of course they can use it. The examples of prosecution in the past are examples of ignorance just like the gag poll that has always been on the netstumbler site (users responding "it's illegal" help show the ignorance). If someone using my bandwidth is ever interfering with my activities, I unplug the spare rounter and continue using my laptop through the remaining WPA-protected routers. Hell, if anything, it has actually secured my network by allowing me to maintain WPA instead of WEP for the Nintendo DS and removing the need to get onto my multi-client + fileserver gigabit network.
On the weekend I'm a security guard that is around when everyone is gone, and yes: When I see a candy dish placed on the shelf, I can assume that it's being offered to passers-by. Why else is it placed there?
The analogy breaks down when you say, "Why else is [the candy dish] placed there?" which is analagous to "Why is the AP insecure?" The answer to the second question is just as likely to be "ignorance" as it is to be "so others can use it."
And your computer's MAC Address is broadcast, unencrypted, in every single packet that you send.
I mean, how the fuck else will it know to filter? Seriously, people, even if you don't have a background in this stuff, it's easy to guess at how shit works!
sidenote: I deliberately leave my network open. If somebody needs quick Internet, then by all means go for it. If a guest is coming over with a laptop, I don't want to have to dig out the notebook full of passwords that I only use once a year if that. If anyone starts abusing it, that's when I'll lock it down.
Secure the computers, people, not the network. Relying on the network being inaccessible is dumb; even WPA can be cracked given enough time and intercepted packets.
edit: wow, I didn't realize that this thread was both old and six pages long. oops.
That's not where the analogy breaks down, that's precisely where it strengthens. It's not the users job to ask why. It's there - There's no price tag on it. If the owner decides to take it down and stop offering it, so be it. You didn't hurt anything while it was available regardless of the owners intention to share or not. Ignorance is not an excuse for the owner and to the user using WiFi it is 100% no different than using unadvertised free WiFi at the library or anywhere else. If the owner didn't want to give the bandwidth, it's their fault for sharing it. It's a problem they can correct at any time should it ever become a problem and they become aware of it. They should not buy and use technology intended for publicly sharing Internet access (certainly one of its many uses) and then acuse someone of stealing when they inadvertantly share their own Internet access.
But leaving your access point wide open is what causes a lot of people problems these days when MP3's or other things are downloaded and the RIAA decides to try and monetarily rape you because it shows from your IP which was connected to your wireless router.
No kidding. You're not going to agree with your argument anymore after you're busted for downloading childporn, mp3s, movies, and warez.
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
They can't sue the ISP. Here in the US at least... that recent development in the UK sure does set a bad precedent (forcing the ISP to block P2P traffic).
They can't sue the ISP, but they could sue you, if you were the owner of that unsecured connection. Not likely to win, but the RIAA doesn't sue to win cases, they sue to scare people shitless enough to sign the check.
There was a local case in the Saginaw News this weekend that somebody successfully sued under laws intended to protect victims of cable theft (When your neighbor steals cable by connecting to your house line rather than the pole) for unauthorized wireless access. If it works (The idea is sound, but I doubt doubt the judge knew what he was doing, and I also doubt the law is worded to support it), it might make up for the woefully weak electronic trespassing laws.
Also, there was that case a few years ago regarding Home Depot - a mistake in how they were set up allowed outside systems to access the otherwise secure wireless network in the store through the cash registers. I know at least one person was convicted, and one other (Spoke at length at Notacon 3 about the matter) got off on technicalities with improperly filed warrants. I can't seem to find what law they were tried under, though.